DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Paul Daisley, Esq., Member for Brent, East. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

International Whaling Commission

John Barrett: If she will make a statement on the outcomes of the annual International Whaling Commission meeting in Japan.

Ben Bradshaw: As you know, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unable to be present today due to her attendance at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg.
	The outcomes of the 54th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, held in Japan in May 2002, were detailed in the letter of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), of 10 July 2002, a copy which was placed in the Library.
	This year's annual meeting, which is being held in Berlin, ends today. I will report on the outcome in due course, but I am pleased to announce to the House that, so far, the UK has achieved all its key objectives, including maintaining the moratorium on commercial whaling and successfully adopting the so-called Berlin initiative. That UK co-sponsored resolution reinforces conservation as a primary function of the IWC and will help to give greater focus to the conservation agenda. The conservation groups have described that achievement as historic.

John Barrett: I welcome the Minister to his new post. I submitted this question before the reshuffle and was told that it might be answered by the Secretary of State for Wales.[Interruption.]
	The UK Government have a good track record on whale conservation and promoting whale sanctuaries, and the progress at Berlin in the past week has been good. However, not all countries will abide by the agreements. What positive action can the Government take to bring those rogue states into line?

Ben Bradshaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome and for his recognition of the positive role played by the Government and by my predecessor, now the Minister for the Environment, who has an excellent track record and has achieved so much on this issue. The UK Government will continue to work very hard with other pro-conservation Governments around the world and the relevant non-governmental organisations to ensure that those rogue states, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, come into line and properly address this very important issue of conservation and cruelty.

Tam Dalyell: What about the plight of small cetaceans? Randall Reeves, who is the chair of the IUCN specialist cetacean group, says that they
	"are dying in droves every year in fishing nets",
	that they
	"lose out in the shadow of the whaling controversy"
	and that the
	"scale of the cetacean by-catches problem was highlighted in a recent survey of boats fishing off north-west Spain."
	The number of common and bottle-nose dolphins is now unsustainable. This is a real problem.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a very serious problem. The specific resolution on by-catches that the UK co-sponsored at Berlin has not yet been discussed, but the Berlin initiative itself should have a positive impact on the problem that he outlines. He may be interested to know that the Whale and Dolphin Conservative Society has already called the Berlin initiative
	"a positive step for the world's cetaceans",
	and that the World Wide Fund for Nature went even further by describing it as an
	"historic day for cetacean conservation".
	I should also add that the trials that the Government have undertaken off the south-west of England to try to prevent the problem of the by-catch of small cetaceans have proved very successful and we shall try to roll them out next year, as well as talking to fellow EU members to encourage them to initiate similar trials.

Norman Baker: I also welcome the Minister to his post. He has got an easy start because the Government have a very good record on whaling, and I have paid tribute to them for that for many years. However, does he share my concern about the increasing use of sonar technology in the oceans, particularly for military purposes, which deafens and kills whales? There have been examples of that in the Bahamas and elsewhere. In particular, will he reflect on the fact that the US Administration, under President Bush, have apparently given permission for the navy to use sonar technology in 75 per cent. of the world's oceans, which could have serious consequences for the whale population? Will he raise that with the American authorities and the IWC?

Ben Bradshaw: I would be happy to do so. I admit that I know a great deal less about this subject than the hon. Gentleman, as I have been in the job for only a few days, but I understand that the primary responsibility for the issue falls to the Ministry of Defence. I will ask my ministerial colleagues for their reaction to his remarks.

Agricultural Research (Aberystwyth)

Win Griffiths: What plans she has to visit Aberystwyth to discuss agricultural research projects being undertaken there.

Elliot Morley: Sadly, I have no plans at present to visit Aberystwyth.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Win Griffiths: Shock, horror! I understand that my hon. Friend's Department finances quite a lot of research at Aberystwyth. In particular, will the Department consider—I hope that it will—putting even more money into research on grass for use in arid areas, as that is of particular relevance to many parts of the developing world?

Elliot Morley: I certainly agree that a great deal of important work has been done at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth, which is recognised by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that over the last three years we have funded research at Aberystwyth to the tune of around £6 million for each of those three years. I recognise that it is doing important work on grassland types, which will have a great deal of helpful applications, particularly in arid areas.

Michael Jack: First, I congratulate the Minister on his promotion and on having had the burden of fishing lifted from his shoulders. He will understand that Aberystwyth's research work is much bolstered by the scientific output of Horticulture Research International. To that end, is his Department yet able to decide its future grant funding arrangements for HRI and the application from East Malling for support, both of which are central to the future of HRI and its marriage with Warwick university?

Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman, who knows the history of HRI and who knows about the existing complications, is absolutely right about HRI's important role. All I can say at the moment is that we are trying to find a way forward on its funding problems, and we recognise the important role that it plays in horticulture and the value in which it is held.

Fishing Industry

Michael Weir: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the fishing industry.

Ben Bradshaw: DEFRA Ministers meet ministerial colleagues, including those in the devolved Administrations, regularly to discuss the fishing industry.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am not sure whether I should congratulate or commiserate with him on becoming Minister with responsibility for fishing. In his discussions with colleagues, however, has he had a chance to discuss the clause in the new draft constitution of the European Union that would transfer full control of fisheries to Brussels? Such a move would be disastrous for Scottish fishing communities already reeling from the last Fisheries Council in December, and the clause has been opposed by both the Scottish Parliament and by the Scrutiny Committee on European Legislation in a report this week. Will the Government stand up for the fishing communities of Scotland and ensure that the clause is removed at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference?

Ben Bradshaw: Sadly, I have not yet had a chance to discuss that specific issue with colleagues, but I will be going straight from the Chamber to spend most of the afternoon in discussions with colleagues and interested parties from the fishing industry. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right, however, because the Convention recommends no extension of EU powers or competencies over fishing. Marine biological resources have been the exclusive competence of the EU since 1979. Scotland's First Minister made that clear in his letter of clarification of 10 June to John Swinney, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen. If he has not seen it, I have a copy that he can have afterwards.

Joan Humble: First, I add my congratulations to the Minister on taking up a post that is very important to my constituents in Fleetwood. They would want me to draw to his attention the special needs of the Irish sea as a mixed fishery, because they have serious concerns about some of the recent pronouncements from Brussels. I therefore take this opportunity to put in an early bid to the Minister to come to speak to the fishermen of Fleetwood so that he can hear directly not only their concerns but their positive attitude to joint working with Government scientists and to work across the Irish sea with other communities, both to safeguard the fish stocks and to develop a sustainable fishing industry.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful for that kind invitation from my hon. Friend, who is a doughty and effective fighter for her local fishing industry. I am going to try to get around to as many centres of our fishing industry as quickly as possible, as I am critically aware that I follow a Minister with up to 15 years' experience, and I have a lot to learn. I am sure that the concerns that she expressed, which we share, about the proposals as they would affect the Irish sea will be high on the agenda when I listen to what her fishermen have to say.

Richard Bacon: Congratulations to the Minister on taking control of the nation's fish. I only regret that there are so few fish left because of the disaster of the common fisheries policy. Does he agree that the time has now come to re-impose the 200-mile limit for this nation to take control again of its own fish resources, especially as his distinguished predecessor confirmed recently in the European Scrutiny Committee that that would be lawful?

Ben Bradshaw: No, I do not. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has said that he did not say that.

Elliot Morley: I said the opposite.

Ben Bradshaw: Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy would be neither practical nor sensible. It would entail negotiating a whole series of bilateral agreements with other EU members. I would have thought that there would be a consensus that we need a common European policy on fisheries because fish move around. The way to improve the common fisheries policy is to negotiate improvements, which the Government have an excellent record on doing.

Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new brief and give him a warm welcome. When he held discussions with ministerial colleagues, he probably noted that the former Parliamentary Secretary was regrettably unable to come to an engagement at the Whitby fishing school, which is at the heart of the North sea fishery. When he undertakes his tour of the coasts, will he come to Whitby and meet the fisher-people of the community of Whitby and Scarborough? I hope that he will prove to be as much of a fishermen's friend as his predecessor.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not promise to perform miracles where my predecessor did not manage to, but I am critically aware of the potential pitfalls of leaving anywhere out when I make my tour of the country to visit fishermen.

Ann Winterton: May I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position? He will already know that competence for UK fisheries policy lies entirely with the European Union. However, will he confirm that if competence for that policy were repatriated to the United Kingdom, it would require legislation in Parliament? If further devolution took place—for example the Scottish Executive being given responsibility for the Scottish industry—will he confirm that legislation would also be required in the House?

Ben Bradshaw: Forgive me, but I am not absolutely sure whether legislation would be required in the House.

Ann Winterton: Say yes.

Ben Bradshaw: Well, the hon. Lady says that I should say yes but I would rather be completely sure of my ground before doing that. However, there would have to be a change to a European Union treaty, which would require unanimous agreement.

Alistair Carmichael: May I, too, add my words of welcome to the Minister and tell him that he has a hard act to follow? When he starts his tour of fishing communities, I hope that he will start with those at the centre of fishing areas—those in Shetland, of course. Thereafter he may work out to the periphery. He will be aware that the European Commission recently gave an unhelpful ruling on schemes operating in my constituency and elsewhere regarding the purchase and leasing of quota. Will he assure me that he will speak to his colleagues in the Scottish Executive at an early stage as he comes to terms with his brief with a view to establishing from the Commission exactly what can be done to bring the schemes within state aid rules?

Ben Bradshaw: I am aware of the issue in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in which proposals have fallen foul of EU state aid rules. I shall examine the implications of that and discuss them with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive and interested parties in the industry. It sounds as though I shall be spending the summer on a grand tour.

GM Crops

Anne Campbell: What recent assessment she has made of the potential advantages of GM crops.

Elliot Morley: Advocates of genetically modified crops argue that they offer a wide range of potential benefits if they are developed and used wisely. We have commissioned a study of both the costs and benefits as part of the national GM dialogue. This will be published next month. As part of our commitment the public will have the opportunity to consider both sides of this issue.

Anne Campbell: I welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on his promotion. I hope that he will find GM crops a little more comfortable than fishing. Is he aware of the work of Bengali scientists to develop a protein-rich potato that could improve the diets of 6 million children who are currently malnourished? Does he agree that that is a good reason why we should not throw the whole idea of GM out of the window and that GM crops have potential advantages that must be exploited?

Elliot Morley: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and know of her expertise in the subject. I am aware of that research work. It shows why it is important that we consider each case on its merits. We consider very carefully the potential benefits of GM crops and, indeed, benefits are claimed for that potato. It is also important, however, to consider the arguments in the round. For example, increasing the amount of pulses may result in more protein improvement in India than modified potatoes. We have to weigh up such considerations. My hon. Friend puts her finger on how important it is to look at the arguments fairly and not to take a polarised position on one side or the other.

Robert Key: May I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role and urge him to maintain scientific objectivity before the Government come to a conclusion? In the light of the extraordinary question from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), to the Prime Minister yesterday, does he agree that GM foods are the most trialled and tested ever in the history of mankind? Given that many millions of people have been eating those foods for the best part of a decade with not one single case of an adverse reaction, does he really think that human feeding trials are the answer? Even if the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton were to volunteer, would it be ethical?

Elliot Morley: It is important that we question science and look at it carefully. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is right to apply precautionary principles. It is a privilege to follow him in the role that he carried out with such distinction over many years. However, I come back to the point that we must approach the issue on the basis of good science. We need to examine the claims and consider GM foods on a case-by-case basis. The effects on people must also be taken into account.
	The matter has been considered by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. It was also examined in the detailed Food and Agriculture Organisation study in 2000. In addition, our Food Standards Agency takes into account the potential effects of toxins and allergies. We cannot ignore those issues. They do not necessarily rule out GM foods, but we cannot ignore them.

Michael Meacher: May I strongly support my hon. Friend, my successor, in what he said about the need to follow good science? However, since the science indicates that there is still far too much uncertainty about the long-term impacts of GM, as there was in the case of BSE; since science has not yet devised co-existence rules that can fully protect organics against cross-contamination; since there have been no scientific trials of the long-term health or biochemical impacts on human beings of eating GM-free food; and since neither science nor EU labelling rules have yet found a way to guarantee consumers' rights to eat GM-free food for those who wish to, is it not clear that on scientific grounds—I emphasise on scientific grounds—it is not safe, necessary or desirable to commercialise GM crops at this stage in this country until far more testing has been carried out?

Elliot Morley: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that more work needs to be done. There are unknowns and more research needs to be put in place. He is right about labelling because whatever the future of GM foods, it is important that consumers have information and choice. He is also right about the need to look at the implications of GM foods in every sense. We need mechanisms in relation to control, potential liability and certainly in terms of co-existence, but those are not yet in place.

David Lidington: First, may I welcome the Minister of State to his new and promoted responsibilities? I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), to the Department's team. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). The Opposition did not always agree with him when he spoke in a ministerial capacity, but his commitment to the environment was undoubted and his courtesy was unfailing in all Commons exchanges. We certainly appreciated that.
	Will the Minister now acknowledge both that the Government's great debate on GM crops has amounted so far to six meetings within the space of 10 days, none of which have been held in the main arable areas of England or Scotland, and that the debate will have concluded months before the publication of the Government's own crop trials? Will he give an undertaking that, before the Government announce whether they will give approval to the commercial growing of GM crops, they will not only publish the results of their crop trials but subject those conclusions to widespread debate, criticism and discussion?

Elliot Morley: That is the whole idea of the dialogue. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is dismissive of the fact that the debate has been set up by an independent group with an independent chair. The fact that we are talking about it now demonstrates that it has been successful in promoting discussion in this country about the pros and cons of GM foods, which is the intention. I was a bit surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said about arable areas—the issue of GM foods goes far beyond simply farming, and is an issue for consumers, the environment and the wider community. It is quite right that debate on that is as wide and accessible as possible. All the information that we have will, of course, be put into the public domain and will be made available in a transparent process. Whatever the outcome, there is no intention whatever to give blanket approval to commercial planting—every application must be treated on its individual merits.

Geraint Davies: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Is he concerned about the possible transmission of GM spores on farm vehicles, following research in France on the contamination of organic production and the reliability of food labelling on foods which claim to be GM-free at a time when consumers increasingly want to consume organic food and are reluctant to take the plunge on GM, perhaps with good reason?

Elliot Morley: The need to ensure that organic farmers are not subject to cross-contamination from GM crops is a serious issue, and we are giving a great deal of thought to it. It is an important consideration in the co-existence rules that have to be developed. My hon. Friend is right that we have to look at the potential spread of GM seeds and pollen. That applies to any kind of seed and pollen, but the issue has to be taken into account in the evaluation and, indeed, the current debate.

Andrew George: May I congratulate the Minister on swapping one poisoned chalice for another? Will he not admit that the Government, although perhaps not him or his distinguished predecessor, made up their mind in favour of GM years ago, and the public debate is merely window-dressing? In 1999, the DTI invested public funds
	"to improve . . . the take-up of biotechnology applications"
	across the country. The sum that was invested was 26 times greater than the amount of money being spent on the public debate. Why does the Minister not admit that, although consumers do not want the stuff, although it could give biotech companies a stranglehold on the whole food chain, and although we need to base decisions on sound science rather than quick science, the Government, but perhaps not him, are already in the pocket of the GM lobby?

Elliot Morley: I absolutely reject that claim. I have been involved in the discussion of GM on and off since 1997, when I was a Minister in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have always expressed the need for caution. I repeat that we should not rule out new developments on the basis of prejudice. We must evaluate the scientific arguments for and against, and look at each case on its individual merits. We should not take a polarised position which, I have to say, is unusual for the hon. Gentleman.

Registered Agricultural Holdings

Elfyn Llwyd: What steps she is taking to arrest the decline in the number of registered agricultural holdings; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Government launched their strategy for sustainable farming and food in England last December to promote a competitive and efficient farming and food sector. A similar strategy was published by the Welsh Assembly Government in November 2001. The structure of the farming industry will be determined by the markets and the commercial judgment of individual farmers and growers.

Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his elevation and you, Mr. Speaker, on your well earned doctorate. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	Unfortunately the Minister did not answer the question that I tabled when I asked what was being done to arrest the decline in agricultural holdings. A written reply that I have just received states that in 1997, there were 77,829 holdings in England whereas in 2002, there were 69,000. The position is worse in Wales, where the number has decreased from 19,300 to 16,800—a drop of 13 per cent. That has a disproportionate effect on the rural economy of Wales. Will the Minister examine the current structure and consider, for example, assistance for new entrants and smaller farms? He shakes his head, but nothing has been done in the past 10 years. It is complacent of the Government simply to talk about marketing when farms are lost daily.

Elliot Morley: But those changes have been happening since farming began. The trend towards amalgamation has been accelerating since the 1930s; there is nothing new about it. It is difficult for the Government to set any industry in stone and say that it will never change again under any circumstances. It is not possible to do that.
	All sorts of changes have occurred in farming. The same farmer may have several holdings that he has consolidated; that does not necessarily mean that farms have disappeared. I accept that there has been a decline—I would not want to pretend otherwise—but that has been in progress for a long time. However, other changes have occurred, with new people, who may have other sources of income, taking on smaller farms. They bring innovation and new ideas.
	Farming is dynamic: it changes and adapts. We have a role to play in that through the help that we give farming—in research and development, environmental or marketing support. However, we cannot say that farming will never change: that is up to the drivers of society, markets and, indeed, farmers.

Huw Edwards: But does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities and other public bodies can recognise the importance of farming in rural economic development? Will he join me in congratulating Monmouthshire county council, which recently decided to invest in a new livestock market that will serve not only south-east Wales but the border areas of England.

Elliot Morley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Monmouthshire county council on its work. We can do a great deal to support local sourcing, not only through supporting our farmers in the rural economy but in reducing food miles. There are sound arguments for that.

Locally Grown and Produced Food

Gregory Barker: What steps she is taking in the EU to enable the preferential procurement by public sector bodies of locally grown and produced food.

Alun Michael: We encourage public sector bodies to adopt purchasing policies that allow local growers and food producers the opportunity to compete for business. Local sourcing is an element of our sustainable food procurement initiative.

Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer, but it did not address the question about what he is doing in the EU. We lag way behind France and Italy in local procurement. I draw the Minister's attention to the excellent report, "Relocalising the Food Chain", which Cardiff university produced. It found that
	"barriers imposed by EU procurement legislation, while considerably restricting purchasing discretion are not insurmountable." Will the Minister give a clear and quantifiable pledge to increase the amount of locally produced and procured food in our schools, hospitals and other public bodies, and thereby dispel the Government's reputation for lacking imagination and ambition on local procurement?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has imagination because he has managed to answer his question. I am delighted that he has done that. The EU rules do not prevent local procurement. It is a question of engagement between farmers, food producers and their market. We are trying to help the industry to understand the way in which to get into that market. We have issued guidance, which is publicly available, so the hon. Gentleman can read it. We have provided case studies and advice, and we shall continue to do that to enable people to understand the way in which they can help local producers to bid and succeed. We also need to help the producers to get into the market and supply what their market wants.

David Kidney: As the rest of the ministerial team have been congratulated, may I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on still being in his job? Does he accept that cheap and pre-packaged foods are often stuffed full of fat, salt or sugar, and that that is contributing to an alarming increase in the incidence of obesity, diabetes and ill-health? Is there not a responsibility across government to establish rules for procurement—within EU rules—that would require more fresh, wholesome food? Such rules would obviously contribute to a greater degree of local production and supply of food.

Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations; I am delighted still to be in this role and to be a member of this very fine team. He is absolutely right: it is possible to set procurement standards that enable fresh local produce to have the best chance of succeeding. He is right to place an emphasis on health and good quality, but we cannot demand that local produce should be included. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) suggested in his supplementary question, however, there are ways of encouraging good quality, fresh and locally produced food to come into the public service. That is the way in which we should approach this.

David Burnside: The Minister must realise that public sector bodies have a problem, in that they have to buy according to best value. When I walk into Tesco's supermarket in Ballymoney, I know whether the lamb, chicken, vegetables and loaf of bread that I am buying have been produced locally in Northern Ireland, because they are labelled. Could the Minister direct all public sector bodies in the health service and education to have the same labelling policy in their restaurants and canteens, so that it would be quite obvious which products had been locally produced? That would lead to a massive increase in demand for such products from the customers. Does the Minister agree with that constructive proposal?

Alun Michael: There is a variety of ways in which the choice available to consumers—in public organisations and elsewhere—can be extended. There are two halves to the equation, however. The first involves ensuring that public sector bodies know that they are not precluded from designing their procurement policies in such a way as to promote fresh and local produce, to give it a fair chance while not excluding other bidders. The second involves encouraging UK producers to understand the service that they are providing and to be more competitive through greater collaboration, more co-operative working, and having a greater understanding of the public procurement approach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that informing people about what they are purchasing and what their choices are is an important part of that.

Departmental Rebranding

David Heath: If she will make a statement on the purpose of the rebranding of her Department.

Alun Michael: A lot of work has gone into making DEFRA an efficient organisation that serves the public interest and is focused on the needs of its customers. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may chortle, but this is not something that the Conservative Government ever sought to do. We seek to be a Department that is modern, professional and forward-looking. We want that to be reflected by a new sense of confidence among our staff, and for the public to see the effects of change and modernisation. The rebranding exercise is just one part of that work, helping to establish a new identity and explain the role and purpose of the new Department.

David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures extracted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), which show that the rebranding exercise cost £329,000, and that a further £200,000 was spent on putting up new signs? The right hon. Gentleman says that extensive research has helped DEFRA to develop a better understanding of what its customers expect from it. Is it not the case, however, that customers expect something other than invisibility in matters concerning the environment, and something other than disengagement in matters concerning agriculture? Do they not also expect the Department not to waste half a million pounds of taxpayers' money?

Alun Michael: The public expect those things from us, and that is what we are trying to give them. There is a little disingenuousness in the hon. Gentleman's question. The work to which he refers includes scoping the project, producing briefing and listening to consumers. It has been suggested that that money has gone into producing a new logo, and I would like to correct that. The direct cost of the new DEFRA logo was £24,000. It is part of a change in the culture and the capacity to deliver on the part of the Department.

Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review being conducted by Lord Haskins could inevitably lead to further rebranding of the Department? Does my right hon. Friend accept, first, that all change causes uncertainty and that it is important to complete the process as quickly as possible; and secondly, that although policy and delivery may be different, it is important that, even if they are separated, there are means to communicate and link up those two aims?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. First, any reorganisation—any uncertainty—causes problems because it takes people's eyes off the ball of delivery. We will do all that we can to avoid that. Secondly, on the link between policy and delivery, the wrong policy well delivered is not good news, nor is the right policy badly delivered. We need good policy and good delivery, which is what we are working on.
	I do not think that there will be the necessity to rebrand the Department, but there may be changes in relation to the agencies that are part of the DEFRA family and how things are delivered, for instance, through the regional development agencies, local government and so on. The likelihood of some changes in those directions is indicated by the statement of principles that Lord Haskins has already put in the public domain.

David Lidington: Does the Minister understand the justified resentment in our rural communities at time and money being wasted on rebranding exercises when, to take just one example, his Department's Rural Payments Agency is persistently late in delivering to British farmers the payments to which they are entitled and on which the cash flow of their businesses may depend? Is it not time that he started to treat effective service delivery as rather more important a priority than rebranding?

Alun Michael: I suppose that there is some resentment when people are told by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that rebranding is not necessary. Of course, he skips the necessity to improve the quality of services, policies and delivery, which is all part of the same issue—improving quality and improving delivery.
	The point is that the new Department takes on enormously important responsibilities for the environment and all the things that are necessary for life and the quality of life; for farming and food; for rural economies; for fisheries; and for the issues that we have already talked about today. People need to understand that we are changing in the direction that the public and our consumers want. As much as the hon. Gentleman tries to obscure it, that is what we are doing—but there we are, that is the Opposition we have got.

David Lidington: Indeed, the examples of incompetence and poor priorities go much further than British agriculture. Will the Minister confirm that, because the Government got their sums wrong over the cost of implementing their right-to-roam legislation, they are having to cut their vital villages grant programme in this and future years? Is it not time that he committed himself to delivering a fair deal for the countryside by concentrating first on good housekeeping and practical policy delivery rather than on slogans and spin?

Alun Michael: Well, that sounded like slogans and spin to me, but it gives me the opportunity to correct some impressions about the Countryside Agency's spending. There were fears that it would be far too high and that that would dramatically affect the vital villages programme. That has been brought under control. There has been a short-term suspension of activities in the vital villages programme, which I think is unnecessary. I have made that clear to the agency.
	The hon. Gentleman criticises the Rural Payments Agency. It has vastly improved its performance and we are investing a great deal of money in the IT that will enable it to do so even more responsibly. I see that a certain amount has been invested in rebranding the Conservative party. I agree that that is a waste of money.

Fallen Stock

Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on the disposal of fallen stock on farms.

Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on the proposed scheme for collecting fallen stock.

Ben Bradshaw: The response to the letter that we sent to livestock farmers in April asking for expressions of interest in joining a national fallen stock scheme has been disappointing. In the light of that, we are considering whether the scheme should now go ahead, and if so in what form.

Laurence Robertson: In welcoming the new Minister, may I also pay tribute to the former Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), whom I found to be both able and courteous?
	Does the Minister agree that many livestock farmers may not have fully realised the implications of the European legislation? The Minister for the Environment shakes his head, but would not more people be attracted to the scheme if it were already up and running? Farmers will have great difficulty in disposing of fallen stock, especially if the Minister for Rural Affairs has his way on the hunting ban.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman may have a point when he says that if the scheme were up and running people might come on board, but I do not agree that we could have done more to publicise it. We have debated it for over a year, we have written to every livestock farmer in the country, and we have extended the consultation period. The response we have received does not suggest to us that people are not aware of the scheme; it is just that not enough people have responded.

Simon Thomas: Although the response was disappointing, as the Minister says, it is possible that those who did respond were the main livestock farmers. The response may have come from the larger holdings, where the scheme could work. Will the Minister look at the details of the responses from both England and Wales, and establish whether the scheme could be made to work initially? Other farmers could be persuaded to join subsequently.
	Will the Minister also take account of the experience of Scotland? The scheme is going ahead on most farms there. Meanwhile, leeway is being given to upland and remote farms in, for instance, mid-Wales, where stock can be left to feed the rare red kite population. That combination could prove successful. Will the Minister look into it and ensure that something is done and that farmers are not left in limbo?

Ben Bradshaw: I will look at the details of the responses. From what I have seen during the few days in which I have been doing my job, I believe that there has been a bigger response from the bigger producers, and a bigger response from Wales and Scotland. That does not help our calculations, however. After my meeting with representatives of the fishing industry this afternoon, I shall discuss the matter during my first meeting with farming industry representatives, taking into account the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The aims of the fallen stock scheme are laudable. The Minister may be surprised to learn, however, that farmers in my constituency must travel as far as Haverfordwest and the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) under the current scheme—journeys taking more than two hours—although there are local, established incinerators that could be brought up to standard. Will the Minister clarify the guidelines on grants that may be available, and specify the standard that the incinerators should meet?

Ben Bradshaw: I will look into that. I understand that the issue of grants is currently being investigated, as are the guidelines on the standards of incineration.

Michael Clapham: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend.
	I know from meetings I have had with farmers in my constituency that there will be great disappointment if the scheme does not take off. What about the BSE testing scheme? Will that still be in situ, and will beasts aged both under and over 24 months still be picked up free of charge?

Ben Bradshaw: The BSE scheme will remain in situ. The issue of the age of carcases is under review. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition—reflected, I think, on both sides of the House—that the scheme the Government came up with earlier this year is a good one. It is disappointing that there has not been a more positive response.

James Gray: Leaving aside the substantial shortcomings of the scheme that has been proposed, will the Minister focus for a moment on one unfortunate side product? I use the term advisedly.
	I understand that all the ash that will be produced from the incineration of the 200,000 tonnes of fallen stock each year will have to go into landfill, which contrasts starkly with what happens to ash from human crematoriums. If one's granny dies of black plague we can spread the ash on the garden, but if one's horse dies of old age we cannot. Will the Minister reconsider the regulations involved so that the ash can be put to better use—for instance, by being spread on the land?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is rather unfair when he describes the scheme as having shortcomings. It is a very good scheme. It offers—it is still on the table—good value for money for producers of all sizes. The charges that were being talked about represented good value for money compared with the fees that producers would pay if they had to dispose of the fallen stock themselves in the free market. On the specific question of the disposal of ash, I am ashamed to admit that I was not aware of that problem, but I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me.

David Taylor: The Poultry Farming in the United Kingdom Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, is conducting an inquiry under my chairmanship into the British poultry industry. Two days ago, we heard from the two national organisations for egg producers and meat producers that they have a significant problem with the disposal of dead birds, which number many millions a year. What access to any fallen stock scheme was offered to them? Would not that help to improve the viability of the scheme?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. As it stands, large poultry producers would be eligible for the scheme. However, as I said earlier, because of the low number of responses to the Government's consultation, we may have to have another look at that matter. I am also aware that many of the producers that my hon. Friend talks about already have their own solutions to the problem, such as incineration on-site.

GM Contaminations

Vincent Cable: When she expects to issue guidelines on liability for compensation in the case of GM contaminations.

Elliot Morley: We expect to receive a report next month from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and associated liability issues. We will consider that issue further in the light of that report.

Vincent Cable: Can I return to the issue of the economic implications of contamination, particularly for organic farming, by GM crops? When will the Government issue guidance on specific liability, which I believe the commission judges to be a political, not a technical issue, and on an industrial compensation scheme, on which the Government would have to take a lead? Without guidance and leadership on those two issues, it will be impossible to make rational decisions on the future of commercial use of GM crops.

Elliot Morley: As I mentioned earlier, we recognise that co-existence raises issues, including whether it is possible to agree threshold limits in relation to crops, how those can be measured and how that fits in with the organic sector's rules. Of course, there are issues of liability, regulation of the use of any crops, declaration, description and control. Those are quite complex issues. The report that has been commissioned will be helpful in guiding the Government on what the best way is of shaping that. Those issues are still under discussion. The national dialogue that is under way will also be helpful in obtaining people's views on the best way forward on those points.

CAP

Joyce Quin: If she will make a statement on EU discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy.

Alun Michael: As my right hon. Friend is aware, crucial negotiations between EU Agriculture Ministers about reform of the common agricultural policy got off to a positive start last week and resumed on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently heavily engaged in trying to secure a deal that will benefit farmers, consumers, the environment, developing countries and world trade.

Joyce Quin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that replacing the common agricultural policy with a policy of sustainable rural development is the best way to reconcile the interests of farmers, world trade and developing countries? Which countries in the EU are supporting such an approach, and, in particular, what discussions and support are we getting from our German partners, who have a lot to gain from that approach?

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend takes us into some of the detail. I believe that the plenary session reconvened a few minutes ago. We are still talking and negotiating. There seems to be a common agreement among all parties that we must get an agreement and that the common agricultural policy must be reformed. As I indicated, we are working hard to achieve the right deal. I am sure that she will agree that we have the best negotiator in the business in the Secretary of State, who is seeking to achieve those outcomes for the United Kingdom.

Bill Wiggin: It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at unsupported crops, as it is growers who are already out of the subsidy culture who stand to lose most as a result of the current proposals.

Alun Michael: We certainly look with interest at the situation regarding unsupported crops. The Government's general approach is to help all producers—supported and unsupported—to do their best to meet their market's requirements and to be their competitive.

David Borrow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is absolutely crucial that the European Union is able to enter into the World Trade Organisation discussions in September with significant changes to the common agricultural policy already agreed. Does he agree that a slightly amended CAP—rather than radical reform—is probably not worth having, and that it would be in Britain's and the developing world's interests to push this issue to the limit, instead of agreeing to a slight compromise to satisfy the French Government's unreasonable demands in the current negotiations?

Alun Michael: As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State is the sort of person who will ensure the very best outcome from any period of negotiation. We should await the outcome of those discussions, but my hon. Friend is right to say that a meaningful agreement on CAP reform would be the best possible starting point for our entering into the WTO trade talks at Cancun in September. For the moment, however, we need to contain ourselves and wait and see what emerges from today's discussions.

James Gray: The Financial Times reported last week that the French and the Germans have entered into complex secret negotiations on the subject—would you believe it?—of the takeovers directive. The Germans have made huge concessions and blown a hole in the Fischler package in return for concessions on the takeovers directive. We are pleased that the Secretary of State is currently involved in the negotiations, but I rather hoped that the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box today and give us a bit of news from the front. What line is the Secretary of State taking in those negotiations, will the Minister reassure us that she is indeed fighting British farmers' corner, and what does he hope the outcome will be?

Alun Michael: I am not going to try to predict the outcome of talks that are taking place as we speak. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the line that the Secretary of State will take on behalf of Britain and British agriculture will be a tough one. She will do everything that she can to produce the best possible outcome, and it would enhance the hon. Gentleman's reputation if he were to give her proper credit for the way in which she has fought for us on the international stage. On the Financial Times report, I would simply say that our discussions ought not to be driven by what we read in the newspapers.

Fishing Industry (Northumberland)

Alan Beith: What recent assessment she has made of the (a) state of and (b) prospects for the fishing industry in Northumberland.

Ben Bradshaw: The north-east of England fleet has been numerically stable in the past two or three years. The Northumberland fleet will continue to benefit from access to prawns and to shellfish stocks.

Alan Beith: Does the Minister agree that he would do well to travel to Northumberland pretty soon to enhance his knowledge of the problems faced by fishermen in the region? They have lost much of their cod fishery, are in the process of losing their salmon driftnet fishery, still have no licensing system to protect their shellfish fishery and are worried about the future of the prawn fishery, to which the Minister referred. Should not all of that be fairly high on his agenda?

Ben Bradshaw: My grand tour of UK fisheries during the summer is expanding by the minute. I am aware of the problems faced in recent years by the fishing industry that the right hon. Gentleman represents, but I should point out that the salmon driftnet fishery is a voluntary scheme that has proved—he will correct me if I am wrong—popular in his area. Of course, it will have very beneficial effects on the number of river salmon, which will also benefit other people.

Abattoirs and Slaughterhouses

Sandra Gidley: What measures her Department is taking to support small and medium-sized abattoirs and slaughterhouses.

Alun Michael: We are encouraging the use of investment grants within the England rural development programme to help to improve the abattoir industry's structure, processing and marketing. We are committing resources to the Meat Industry Forum and are actively participating in its work to improve the competitiveness of red meat food chains.

Sandra Gidley: The problems associated with the reduction in the number of small abattoirs have been well rehearsed, and many existing abattoirs are concerned about the impact of the animal by-products regulations. What is being done to help the smaller slaughterhouses, for which the cost of disposing of blood will rise from £16 per tonne to £60 to £80 per tonne?

Alun Michael: We are helping, and working with, the industry to develop an action plan to address some of these issues. As I have said, grants are available within the England rural development programme to help smaller abattoirs become more competitive. I accept that things are not easy for small abattoirs; indeed, this has long been a difficult issue. We must help and support the market, rather than looking for a magic wand to take away those problems.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May we have the business for next week from the new and part-time Leader of the House?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 23 June—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on student finance, followed by a debate entitled "The Transport Crisis". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
	Tuesday 24 June—Remaining stages of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
	Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 25 June—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a fair deal for students and parents, followed by a debate on a fair deal in world trade. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 26 June—A debate on motions relating to the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and on the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life "Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons".
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 30 June—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
	Tuesday 1 July—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 2 July—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 3 July—Debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2002–03 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 4 July—Private Member's Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the beginning of July will be:
	Thursday 3 July—A debate on the report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on badgers and bovine TB.
	Thursday 10 July—A debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the financing of terrorism.
	I should like to take this opportunity to say what an honour and privilege it is to be appointed Leader of the House. I am delighted to have the opportunity to work closely with you, Mr. Speaker. I follow in illustrious footsteps, and I want to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for the great advances that he—and we—made during his time as Leader of the House. I very much share his enthusiasm for modernisation and his great respect for Parliament. I hope that I can live up to the high standards that he and the now Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) set.
	It is my intention, as Leader of the House, to listen to all sides and strive for consensus rather than conflict. I have fought for democracy and liberty all my political life, and I am and will remain the House's ambassador within the Government. I look forward to working with the shadow Leader of the House—hopefully in a less robust and rumbustious manner than our first encounter on Tuesday inevitably was.

Eric Forth: I am more than happy to welcome the Secretary of State for Wales to business questions—[Interruption]—and we are grateful that he has been able to spare some time to be with us this Thursday. I hope that we will see him nearly every Thursday—at least for a while.
	At yesterday's PMPs—[Hon. Members: "PMPs?"] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies again. At yesterday's PMPs, the Prime Minister said:
	"It has never been the case that officials have given evidence to Select Committees".—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 350.]
	Yet in reply to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
	"If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is normal for officials to appear before Select Committees, the answer is yes."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 388.]
	We really must know who is right. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Speaker are in direct and explicit contradiction of each other. Will the part-time Leader of the House please tell us who he believes to be right on that issue, and if necessary will he give the Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House urgently to apologise and to clear the matter up?
	Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked the Prime Minister whether Buckingham Palace had been consulted before the announcements were made from No. 10 last Thursday. The Prime Minister replied:
	"Consultations have taken place in the normal way."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 367.]
	Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm explicitly whether the palace was consulted before the announcements were made last Thursday from No. 10, especially on those concerning the Lord Chancellor and the Privy Council? We need to know that for the sake of completeness.
	Why are the Government giving parliamentary time to the Hunting Bill and not, apparently, to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill? Do the Government now believe that foxes' health is more important than people's health? And why has only one day been allocated to the Hunting Bill, with all the amendments that have been tabled to it? Why has only one day been allocated to the Finance Bill? That is in direct contradiction of the conventions of the House on such an important Bill. It should concern all right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are now squeezing the parliamentary time for even the Finance Bill, in the same way as they have squeezed almost everything else.
	Can the part-time Leader of the House please clear up the continuing confusion about the relationship between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? When we finally and belatedly dragged the new list of Ministers out of the Government, some five days after the now notorious reshuffle, it emerged that the Under-Secretaries of States for Scotland and Wales are listed as part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is no longer any mention of the Scotland Office or the Wales Office in the list of the Government. Can the part-time Leader of the House further confirm that the Prime Minister said this yesterday?
	"The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs".—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 358.]
	We know already that they report to one permanent secretary, so what has happened to the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? They appear to have disappeared completely in ministerial and official terms, so what is left of them? There might be a brass plaque up on the building, but is there anybody left inside?
	Two Opposition days have been announced for next week—for Monday and Wednesday. Can the part-time Leader of the House guarantee to us that there will be no Government statements encroaching on Opposition time on either day? If he cannot give us that guarantee, will he guarantee that Opposition time will be protected? If the Government ever do have to make a statement on an Opposition day, will he guarantee that the time available to the House will be extended appropriately to protect Opposition time?

Peter Hain: First, on the last point, I will happily endeavour to protect Opposition time. I realise that that is an issue for the right hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "For all of us."] Indeed, and I shall see what I can do. The right hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that we have had regular requests for statements from Secretaries of State—certainly in the first period of our Government—and Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have made statements with greater frequency. I know that the House welcomes that.
	The right hon. Gentleman made regular reference to me as the part-time Leader of the House. I regard myself as doing everything that is needed in all the time that is needed to do this job properly, and I will certainly continue to do that. There are many precedents for it. I do not claim to have the intellectual ability or stature of Lord Howe, but he was both Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister. Someone of much greater stature than both of us—Winston Churchill—also held those posts—

John Bercow: He was a great man.

Peter Hain: That is what I have just said. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	I also want to say that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman gave a very creditable performance, and I look forward to many more of them. Indeed, his performance on Tuesday was so creditable by comparison with that of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that I wonder whether he might find himself in a different job in the event of a shadow Cabinet reshuffle. The Daily Mail reported this morning that the Leader of the Opposition
	"was terrible. Quite stunningly bad. By the end . . . he was reduced to not much more than a handful of quivering gizzards and an empty, tock-hollow skull."
	It went on to say that watching his statement
	"was like seeing Manuel the waiter carry a large tray of Campari sodas down the Spanish Steps in Rome."
	I know that the shadow Leader of the House will agree with the Daily Mail, as he is no friend of the Leader of the Opposition. I am very much looking forward to our exchanges in the future, and to working with him.
	I turn now to the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The shadow Leader of the House asked about officials attending Select Committees. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the matter amply clear and, if there was need of clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker later supplied it. Officials appear by special invitation; but it is not simply as it were a sport—a question of any official attending on demand. The matter is handled in the usual way.
	On the second point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, I can happily confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. Buckingham Palace was indeed consulted in the usual fashion. [Hon. Members: "When?"] The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues ask when and where, but it is not the habit of this House to discuss private conversations with the monarch. The right hon. Gentleman should abide by the culture of the House, as I shall certainly seek to do.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked why only one day had been allocated for consideration of the Hunting Bill. He and every other hon. Member will be well aware that the Bill has been subject to detailed scrutiny, quite properly, in Committee and on other occasions in the House. We are dealing with the Hunting Bill in the normal fashion, and according to the precedent established with other Bills.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked about the Wales Office and the Scotland Office. Frankly, I think the issue is running out of steam, but I shall deal with the points that he raised. Of course my deputy in the Wales Office is listed as a junior Minister under the Department for Constitutional Affairs. For the purposes of locating officials—[Hon. Members: "Careful."] I am being precise, not just careful. I am the Secretary of State for Wales as well as the Leader of the House, so I know what is going on in Wales, unlike the right hon. Gentleman.
	The Wales Office is open for business. The right hon. Gentleman can trot up Whitehall and find that the Wales Office plaque is still there. It was there on Thursday afternoon; it was there on Thursday evening; it was there on Friday morning; and it will remain there. All the officials who were working for me before the reshuffle announcement on Thursday afternoon are still working for me, and will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman should stop flogging this dead horse and get on to serious business instead.
	As to why the Scotland Office and the Wales Office were not listed on the official titles of Ministers, I can tell the House that they never have been. The title of Secretary of State for Wales has always appeared in the official list, and that remains the case—it refers to my goodself. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Opposition promised in their manifesto for the last general election exactly the same division of responsibilities for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland as we have now implemented. They are now seeking to walk away from that manifesto promise, because they are interested in trivia and not the big the constitutional picture.
	The right hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the fact that I, as Secretary of State for Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will deliver for the people of Wales and Scotland in a way that the Tories so abjectly failed to do during their 18 miserable years of office.

Robin Cook: I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous words about me and offer my own warm congratulations to him. I am delighted that the role of regenerating our parliamentary democracy should fall to him, and I am confident that he will give it full priority and will be successful.
	My right hon. Friend will find that one of the delights about this time on a Thursday is the volume of helpful but unsolicited advice that he will receive from Back Benchers. Now that I have the privilege of being a Back Bencher, may I offer him two suggestions on parliamentary business?
	First, when I left his post, the majority of Departments that had a Bill for the next Session had given an undertaking to publish it in draft before the end of this Session. As there are only four weeks to go before the House rises for the summer, I suggest that my right hon. Friend give priority to reminding Departments that they need to fulfil that undertaking.
	Secondly, the innovation, which we introduced, of having a 12-month calendar of parliamentary dates has, sadly, only four more months to run. I am well aware that there will be those around my right hon. Friend who will say that we have no idea of the date of prorogation. May I suggest that if he were to produce a calendar that took us up to and included the next Whit recess, with an asterisk noting that prorogation will be at an unknown date in November, the majority of Members would warmly welcome it and it would get him off to a good start with Members on both sides of the House?

Peter Hain: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am a long-standing admirer and friend of his, and I am privileged to follow in his footsteps in this job. He has made two important suggestions, and I have a great deal of sympathy with both. As Secretary of State for Wales, I have been responsible for seeing draft Wales Bills—a draft Audit Bill for Wales is currently going through pre-legislative scrutiny, which has been very effective—

Patrick McLoughlin: You are still responsible for it.

Peter Hain: Indeed, I am, and I will see it to its end and see it on to the statute book.
	That precedent is a good one, and I shall encourage my fellow Secretaries of State in Cabinet to continue with it.
	On the question of dates for recesses, my right hon. Friend made a valid point, and I understand the need that right hon. and hon. Members have for a clear calendar. That was one of my right hon. Friend's innovative procedures, and it was widely welcomed across the House. I hope to be in a position next week at least to say something about the Christmas recess dates.

Paul Tyler: In congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the honour awarded to you by Glasgow university, I wonder whether you may want to dispel the nefarious rumour that you wish, outside the Chamber, to be referred to from now on as "Doc Martin".
	The Leader of the House has given us further information on the Hunting Bill. Will he consider seriously what will happen after the Bill leaves this part of the building and goes to the other place? He will be aware, having fully briefed himself, that the House of Lords has a different procedure from ours for carry-over. If the Bill is not properly considered in this House—there are queries about whether it will be—and many amendments therefore have to be considered in the other place, the arrangements at the other end of the building are, according to the Clerks, that
	"bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the House in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried-over into the next session"
	The Procedure Committee's recommendation to the House of Lords was:
	"We recommend that the House should now take this endorsement a stage further and agree to Group recommendation (b)"—
	the one to which I have referred—
	"but only for Government bills and subject to the proviso on pre-legislative scrutiny in paragraph 6 above."
	In other words: no pre-legislative scrutiny, no carry-over. If, therefore, the business is not completed in the other House before prorogation, there is no prospect of that Bill's going through to the next Session on carry-over. It will have to start again.
	What does the Leader of the House intend to do in those circumstances? I have no doubt that he has had an opportunity of reading contributions to the debate in this House on carry-over on 10 June, including my own, and I hope that he will note that carry-over is still a matter for negotiation between the parties and is very much connected with the proposals of the Modernisation Committee, led by the previous Leader of the House, which were part of a trade-off to the effect that the Opposition parties should have a bigger role in deciding what comes to this House and in what order, and what business takes place here.
	On a different point, the Leader of the House will have noted the decision on Friday when the Ministry of Defence lost an appeal on Gulf war illnesses having spent £1 million on legal fees, pursuing and harrying veterans—service personnel who served this country well in the first Gulf War—whose only fault was that they sought justice. This morning the Medical Research Council has reviewed the situation. There is still great uncertainty, but what is certain is that those who have served the country well deserve better than the extraordinary behaviour of the Ministry of Defence. Given that there is a new Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, surely the Secretary of State himself should come to the House and explain what has happened.

Peter Hain: I echo the hon. Gentleman's congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure do Members on all Benches throughout the House.
	I was somewhat nervous of the hon. Gentleman's question because when he last rose to question my predecessor as Leader of the House, he prefaced his remarks thus:
	"Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is not about to become Secretary of State for Health".—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 834.]
	I assume that he had an inside track on the Prime Minister's mind. If that is still the case, I should be grateful if he could tell me what my next job will be.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Hunting Bill. He is right that there is no carry-over provision. I am sure that the Lords will not wish to frustrate the overwhelming view of the House of Commons. This House has consistently expressed its position on the Hunting Bill and is about to do so again. It is a manifesto commitment by the Labour party being carried into legislation—as our Government have consistently done with all our manifesto promises. I am sure that the Lords will not wish to block a manifesto commitment of this kind. However, in such circumstances there are other procedures available, to which I hope we will not have recourse, which include the Parliament Acts.
	The question of Gulf war illnesses is an important one. We all had constituents serving in the Gulf and it is an important concern for them and for us as Members of the House. I do not think that the judgment was as conclusive as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I know that the Minister of Defence is considering it closely and no doubt at the appropriate time a Minister will report to the House.

Barry Gardiner: You began the parliamentary day today by announcing the death of my friend and parliamentary neighbour, Paul Daisley, Mr. Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last debate following which Paul came from his sick bed to vote was the hunting debate earlier this year? He would have rejoiced at my right hon. Friend's announcement today that the Bill is coming back to the House for its remaining stages, despite the fact that he was a lifelong supporter of Leicester City—the Foxes.

Peter Hain: I echo your earlier statement, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend's recognition of the outstanding role that the former hon. Member for Brent, East played in this House. He was a champion of the rights of animals and took a strong position on the Hunting Bill, to such an extent that he was willing to rise from his sick bed in desperate circumstances to register his vote. I hope that the House will bear that in mind when we vote on the issue in future.

Keith Simpson: I wonder whether the acting Leader of the House would come back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about the appearance of civil servants in front of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Committee. It seems to me and to many hon. Members that the Prime Minister's director of communications, Mr. Alastair Campbell, has something to offer, whatever one's views on the evidence, because among other things he was directly involved in setting up the Foreign Office coalition information centre. I backed the Government on their action over Iraq and I should have thought that his appearance on behalf of the Prime Minister in front of either Committee would clear this matter up once and for all. If he does not appear, I suspect that those who are looking for a cover-up will believe that there is one.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prime Minister, and indeed the whole Government, have offered to co-operate in the manner described. What is involved, and was evident in the hon. Gentleman's question, is an attempt to bait individual officials in No. 10 and elsewhere in Government. This is a serious situation. Serious allegations have been made and need to be investigated properly. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that will be done properly. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to impugn the integrity of the intelligence services—

Keith Simpson: No.

Peter Hain: I am sure the hon. Gentleman was not seeking to do that. As I have good cause to understand from my job as a Foreign Office Minister, holding two posts between 1999 and last year, the intelligence services do an outstanding job. I worked closely with them on Iraq and other matters, and we should not bring them into this issue.

Denzil Davies: As the Government appear to have set their face against holding a referendum on the new European constitution, would my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that when it arrives in its final form, it will be placed before the House in its entirety so that it can be scrutinised, and if necessary amended, line by line and clause by clause?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend will remember our activity during the Maastricht Bill when these issues last arose. He will also know that it is the responsibility of the House and the wish of the Government to subject every treaty signed to detailed scrutiny. He will also be aware, however, that it is not possible for the House to amend a treaty, although it is possible for it to reject one. I hope that he will participate in that debate. The final constitutional treaty, as with the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties and all the others before and between them, will be made available to Members and brought to the House for debate as usual.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has indicated that he will on all occasions stand up for the integrity and authority of the House. If that is the case, when he comes to the Modernisation Committee and is no doubt elected its Chairman, will he assure the House that the matter of programming will be a priority for him? As he realises, much important legislation is going through the House with large sections not debated. That cannot be right or enhance the reputation of the House, and it means that the House is not carrying out one of its most fundamental duties.
	To follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, if statements are made prior to an important Opposition debate, will the right hon. Gentleman give me a commitment that he will look at extending that debate beyond the time of interruption by the length of time it took to hear the statement and all the supplementary questions on it?

Peter Hain: I recognise the long and outstanding role that the hon. Gentleman has played in this House. He is widely admired on all Benches.
	The hon. Gentleman made a series of important points. If the Modernisation Committee decides to elect me as its Chair, I would be privileged to do the job. Its work is very important. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in it and I hope to have discussions with him on his views. He makes an important point about programming, which I understand. We have of necessity to get Government business through, but the rights of the House must be respected, and these matters are subject to negotiation through the usual channels. All too often it seems to be the case that a lot of time is taken and sometimes there is filibustering, which is a tactic that all Oppositions use—I am not casting stones in any particular direction—so that some of the big issues are not subject to the detailed scrutiny that they need.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about statements and consideration will be given to that. He will understand that Members want to know when proceedings are likely to end. If we continually did as he suggests there would be protests from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Moreover, we have a responsibility to get Government business through. Nevertheless, I will certainly give consideration to his request.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on the situation in Iraq; that, during that debate, we shall have the opportunity to hear a statement from a Minister on the operations of the Iraqi assistance fund; and that we shall be told under what powers the privatisation of services is taking place, and given the timetable for British and American withdrawal and replacement by a United Nations force to usher in a representative Government of the people of Iraq? Many people believe that we are witnessing a new colony in Iraq, with all the accompanying horrors and devastation. We need an urgent debate on the matter.

Peter Hain: I recognise my hon. Friend's long and close interest in the matter and the detailed concern that he expresses. There have been many debates and statements on Iraq and other opportunities to raise matters. He would be quite in order to table a private Member's Bill or to try to obtain an Adjournment debate if he feels that there is insufficient opportunity in the future.
	On the future of the UN force, UN operations and the establishment of a representative Government, my hon. Friend knows that we are committed, for the first time in more than a generation, to establishing a representative Government in Iraq. The establishment of democracy in Iraq is one of our objectives.

Roger Gale: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, raised the question that I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government was as evasive today as the Prime Minister was yesterday, so I shall try again.
	Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny that the first that Buckingham palace heard of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor was through the news bulletins? Can he confirm that the Prime Minister discussed with the Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen, his proposals before they were publicly announced? If he can confirm that, can he indicate when it was done?

Peter Hain: I have said all that needs to be said about that matter.

Anne Begg: On 2 July, a mass lobby will be held by some of the 2 million women who suffer from endometriosis, a gynaecological condition that has severe consequences. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on treatment and research funding for a condition that affects so many of our constituents?

Peter Hain: I understand and recognise that important issue and the concerns of those who are affected by the condition. I am pleased that they are making representations in the way that my hon. Friend described. Obviously, I shall look into the opportunities, but she can apply for a debate in the normal fashion.

Archy Kirkwood: The new Leader of the House's statement at the beginning of his tenure, committing himself to further modernisation, is welcome to those on both sides of the House who remain impatient for change. Will he bring forward proposals to give us his own ideas about that as soon as he can? Will he try to get the Minister for agriculture to make a statement next week, not in Opposition time, to explain the outcome of the ongoing consideration in Luxembourg of reform of the common agricultural policy? Will he give serious consideration to a debate on agriculture in Government time, before the summer recess?

Peter Hain: Obviously, we shall give consideration to that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to bring to the attention of the House in the usual way any developments that arise on that matter. We are all concerned. There is probably cross-party consensus on reform—and, indeed, abolition—of the CAP.
	I am not in favour of modernisation for its own sake; I am in favour of listening to the House to consider how we can move forward and adjust, and what it is sensible to do. I look forward to practical suggestions from both sides of the House on how we can take the process forward.

Michael Meacher: In view of the fact that a full-scale public debate is under way on genetic modification—to the Government's credit—and that the public, the industry, the non-governmental organisations and even the media are discussing the issue, can my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the House, too, has an opportunity to express its views on that highly contentious issue in a debate before the recess?

Peter Hain: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was an outstanding Minister for the Environment. I am sure that he will continue to play an important role on that matter in the House, including on the crucial issue of genetically modified products. Obviously, the matter will be discussed in detail and my right hon. Friend will have many opportunities to bring it to the attention of the House by applying for a debate. However, I shall discuss his request with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Andrew MacKay: I am sure that the new Leader of the House would not want to mislead the House on his first outing at business questions, so may I take this opportunity to invite him to correct what he said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? The Leader of the House said that yesterday the Prime Minister had stated that officials attend Select Committees, but in fact the Prime Minister said:
	"It has never been the case that officials have given evidence to Select Committees."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 350.]
	First, will the Leader of the House correct the inadvertent mistake that he made earlier and, secondly, will he tell us when the Prime Minister will come to the House and make a correction, too, and make a statement about when Mr. Alastair Campbell and others will appear before Select Committees?

Peter Hain: The point that the Prime Minister was making to all fair-minded Members was that Ministers are answerable for the conduct of the Government and that the principle of ministerial responsibility applies. Ministers do not dump on our officials—[Hon. Members: "Oh!] Indeed, we do not. That is the point that my right hon. Friend was making. Of course, in particular circumstances, such things can be arranged and discussed, as has often happened.

David Hamilton: I, too, congratulate the Leader of the House on his new appointment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a hard act to follow.
	About two or three weeks ago, the Royal Mail announced that it was changing Parcelforce and moving from rail to road. The impact on the roads will be tremendous and I cannot believe that it will be welcomed by the Select Committee on the Environment and Rural Affairs, the Department of Transport or the Department of Trade and Industry. Will my right hon. Friend make provision for a proper debate before thousands and thousands of lorries plough on to our already congested roads?

Peter Hain: I very much sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend makes. As a former research officer for the Post Office workers union, I know how important the night mail service was. The change is regrettable for environmental reasons as well as for the interests of the Royal Mail. Obviously, the decision is for the Royal Mail, but if my hon. Friend wants to apply for a private Member's debate he has the opportunity to do so.

Richard Bacon: Every pound of public expenditure requires an accounting officer—a civil servant, incidentally—who can account to the House for how that money is spent. May we have an early debate on the consequences of the reshuffle on financial accountability to the House? Furthermore, particularly in relation to the non-devolved responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales, who is the accounting officer? Is it still Sir Jon Shortridge?

Peter Hain: The accounting officer will be the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs. In that respect, my officials in the Wales Office, who come under his remit for such purposes, will have more advantages, instead of being in a very small Department, often seconded from the National Assembly—although that is not such a problem because they could return to Cardiff after service here. Officials permanently based in London had fewer career opportunities than those in much larger Departments. In the Department for Constitutional Affairs, they will have those career opportunities and future advantages that everyone in their position welcomes. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would do so, too.

Gisela Stuart: The Leader of the House is more aware than many Members that we could improve the way in which we deal with European legislation and matters arising from Europe. Will he, therefore, look favourably on the suggestion that, in order to raise awareness, when the Commission's annual programme is discussed by the European Parliament, it is discussed on the Floor of the House at approximately the same time?

Peter Hain: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's outstanding work as one of two House of Commons representatives at the Convention on the Future of Europe. She worked extremely hard, spending far more time in Brussels than was good for her, but she achieved a very good deal for Britain, which we are taking into the intergovernmental conference.
	On the specific point that my hon. Friend makes, I share her desire to make European Union affairs subject to much greater interest in the House. There is an insufficiently wide catchment of Members who take a detailed, informed and expert interest in EU developments. Excellent work is done by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses, but it would be to the advantage of the House and to that of the quality of debate on European matters if there were greater opportunities to discuss those issues throughout the House. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion that the Commission's report and future agenda should be discussed in the House.

George Young: Next Thursday, the House will debate the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Wicks committee. Can the Leader of the House assure us that the relevant changes to Standing Orders will be published well in advance of that debate?

Peter Hain: Yes, it is my intention to table the changes today, if I can. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying that I also want to show them to him, so that we make sure that they are exactly in line with the will of the House.

Anne Campbell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, during a rehearsal of the Parliament choir on Monday, large shards of wood fell from the ceiling of Westminster Hall to where an audience would have been sitting if that had happened during a performance. The audience would have included His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Has my right hon. Friend considered the implications? Does he feel, as I do, that it is time that this building was subject to the proper health and safety checks that every other organisation has to go through?

Peter Hain: I am aware of that incident, as are you, Mr. Speaker. I think that we may even have been together when we received reports of it. Obviously, the choir behaved with great dignity in the circumstances and officials urgently attended to it, and I am sure that the points that my hon. Friend raises will be taken notice of in the appropriate quarters.

Simon Thomas: May I remind the new Secretary of State, Leader of the House and, possibly, Lord Privy Seal as well—

Archy Kirkwood: Has he not given that one up?

Simon Thomas: Oh, right. During the right hon. Gentleman's previous job share, he told us in a reply to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that he had spent 81 out of 90 days on his work as Secretary of State for Wales and the other 10 per cent. on his work on the Convention on the Future of Europe. Will he tell the House now which of his new set of responsibilities is most ill served by that job share—the House, or his duties in Wales? How will he get through those two jobs? He will need more than his usual Red Bull to cope with both of them. Will he arrange a debate in Government time not only on those matters, but on the important constitutional implications of moving civil servants from the Wales Office to a new Department without consulting the body that funds those civil servants from the block grant to the National Assembly for Wales?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the last point. The vote for the Welsh block comes to the Secretary of State, and I then make a subvention for the purpose of running the Wales Office—that will continue—and the remainder goes to the National Assembly.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the days spent on the Convention on the Future of Europe. In fact, I was asked how many days I had spent in Brussels. The answer was that I had spent nine days out of the previous 90 in Brussels. That is a different matter from the time that I spent on the Convention. I really think he should concentrate on the big picture, rather than on the trivialities. I shall do everything that is needed to give a good deal to the people of Wales, as I have done for the past nine months, and I shall do everything and put in all the hours that are needed to ensure that the wishes and interests of House are upheld in this post.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about my post also as Lord Privy Seal. Frankly, when I became aware that I occupied that position, I did not know what it was, so I looked it up. "The Ministers of the Crown" says:
	"Every Government has a Lord Privy Seal in it in order that the holder of the sinecure can carry out duties specified by the Prime Minister."
	I think that it helps with getting paid as well. I was told that, if I did not have that title, I would not get a salary.

Eric Forth: Oh.

Peter Hain: I am sure that that would have been to the despair of the shadow Leader of the House.
	I looked further. "An Encyclopaedia of Parliament" says:
	"From 1275, there was a Keeper of the Privy Seal, who became, in 1311, a Minister of State on the same footing as the Chancellor and the Treasurer, though of somewhat lower dignity. However, the Lord Privy Seal, who may be a Member of either House, can be a very useful auxiliary Minister, able to give his attention to any matter of urgency which may arise. Lord Waverley, for example, in 1938–39, had the job of situating and instituting more effective air-raid precautions."

Jon Trickett: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post? In particular, I welcome his commitment to modernisation. I think that he shares my view and that of many hon. Members that there is an increasing chasm between ourselves and the electorate. No doubt, modernising the House will help to bring about the renewal of trust.
	However, may I press my right hon. Friend on a point to do with the lottery? In my constituency—which, as he knows, is a very deprived area, consisting of former coalmining villages—the Community Fund had what might be thought of as a perfect score, 10 out of 10; but it was 10 failures out of 10 applications. In the past two years, 10 groups have applied for lottery funding and 10 have been refused, each one for bureaucratic reasons. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm to the House that one of the lottery's purposes is to address deprivation? Will he organise an early debate on the lottery, so that we can explore those matters further?

Peter Hain: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport because, obviously, the coalfield community that he represents, which I had the privilege to visit a few years ago, wants like mine to ensure that it gets a fair deal in every respect.

John Redwood: Given that the massive post office closures will reach the office that inspired "Postman Pat" this week and that there has been a big hike in fares on the railways at the same time as the quality of service will decline and services will be cut, can we debate in Government time the failures of Labour's nationalisation and renationalisation, showing that that only brings rip-off fares, a rip-off for the taxpayer and worse service?

Peter Hain: I have brought up my two sons reading "Postman Pat", so I was very sad to hear that Greendale post office was closing and that Mrs. Goggins was being made redundant, but we are all concerned about the future of rural post offices. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served in the previous Government, that thousands of local post offices were closed under the last Conservative Government, and there have been many more closures than I would like under our Government.
	However, the bank closed in my own village, Resolven, in the Neath valley—a former pit village, where I live. I tried to urge its customers—I think that it was Barclays bank—to switch their custom to the local post office, to make better use of it, because they could have had pretty much the same facilities there. Very few took up that opportunity. The problem is that people's changing lifestyles and habits in respect of how they manage their money are putting tremendous strain on local post offices, but the Government are working closely with Post Office Counters Ltd. to ensure that as many local post offices as possible are protected.

Harry Barnes: May I welcome the new Leader of the House to his post? I have obviously changed my opinion since I heckled him in the past at a Tribune rally just after he had moved over from the Liberal party. One of the jobs that he held with distinction was that of Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, so he is well aware of the schemes that operate for ex-coalminers who have suffered from chest complaints and vibration white finger. He will be aware that cokemen form one of the groups that miss out—apart from two cases, which were settled out of court. Can we have a debate about that matter? I believe that negotiations are taking place at the moment to try to ensure that cokemen are covered, and such a debate might add to those possibilities. I have a particular interest, as Avenue coke works was in my constituency and many people have suffered from chest problems because of it, yet they fall outside those provisions.

Peter Hain: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his historical reference. It was 26 years ago, if I am right, in September 1977 and, as I recall, it was a very friendly heckle. On his substantive point, I was privileged as Minister for Energy to drive forward—he was kind enough to say that I did so with distinction—the whole compensation programme for sick miners, their widows and families. We have continued to do that and hundreds of millions of pounds have been paid out in every region and nation of Britain. I know that in Wales more than £300 million has been paid out, bringing to miners justice that was denied them year after year under the previous Conservative Government. The specific point that he makes, however, is important, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will realise that another statement is shortly to be made, and I want as many hon. Members to be able to ask questions as possible. I therefore hope that I have Members' co-operation and that questions will be brief.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the importance of television dramatists showing particular sensitivity towards the British Muslim community in the post-11 September world? I have in mind the recent episode of the television series "Spooks", which focused on an alleged suicide bomb plot being hatched in a British mosque. Given that so many British Muslims are as proud of being British as they are proud of being Muslim, and while I appreciate the need for topicality in such presentations, is it not important that the moderate Muslim community are not unfairly alienated?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman and particularly with his statement that we are proud to have living in our communities many Muslims who count themselves equally proud to be British and of Muslim faith. That enriches our culture. I shall draw the points that he makes to the attention of the appropriate Secretaries of State. As for the issue concerned, a delicate balance has to be struck, as he has always acknowledged, between media freedom and the interests and sensitivities that he raises. I am sure that that will be borne in mind in the future.

Tam Dalyell: In his helpful reply, the Leader of the House invited my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) to come forward with a private Member's Bill on Iraq. What did he have in mind: a withdrawal from Iraq Bill? That would have considerable support at the moment from a number of troops who are sweltering in 44°, with the prospect of 50° in July. Can we have a statement on exactly what is happening in Iraq? We have seen the dreadful pictures on the front page of The Guardian. Incidentally, although I support military action in the Congo, ought we not to have a statement before we get involved in mission creep in central Africa?

Peter Hain: I shall bear in mind and draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary the points that my hon. Friend makes in respect of Iraq and the Congo. I am sure, however, that, as he has indicated, he is proud that we have soldiers serving in the Congo seeking to bring stability to that war-torn and desperate country. He may have been mistaken in hearing me say that there ought to be a private Member's Bill on Iraq—[Interruption.] If it sounded like that, I apologise to the House; I meant that there was an opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate. As we all do, I have among my constituents many servicemen serving in Iraq at the present time. I have been in touch with their families and I know of the desperately hot conditions in which they are serving with such distinction.

Richard Younger-Ross: I can assure the Leader of the House that it is very hot in Iraq at the moment, as I have just returned from a trip to Basra with a number of other Members last week. Although we were able to see the excellent work undertaken by our forces, what was transparent to me was the absence or near-invisibility of other Departments. In relation to the Department for International Development, very little seems to be happening in terms of humanitarian aid, and very little in terms of helping with the restructuring of the banking system. Considering the period that has elapsed since the end of fighting, certainly in southern Iraq, is it possible to have a debate or at least a statement in the House on humanitarian aid and restructuring?

Peter Hain: I shall certainly mention that to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. As is known to the House in one way or another, she is anxious to visit Iraq but she has been advised that the security circumstances may not permit her to do that as early as she wanted. She has every intention of doing so, however, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points are recognised.

Paul Flynn: During the consideration of the constitutional changes, precisely the same treatment and status were accorded to the Wales Office and Scotland Office, and the jobs of Secretary of State for Wales and Secretary of State for Scotland were also treated with precisely the same status. That would be justified if the powers enjoyed by the Welsh Assembly were the same as those enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament. Do we not need a debate to ensure that equality of treatment is matched by equality of powers?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has the opportunity to apply for such a debate. This is an opportunity for me to put it on record that my responsibilities as Secretary of State for Wales, as he implicitly acknowledges, are very different from those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—who may be about to appear before the House. I have responsibility for all the primary legislation affecting Wales, for negotiating on any transfer of function orders and for providing a partnership bridge between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, which happens almost daily, and certainly weekly, as issues arise. That is not the position in Scotland, where powers have been devolved at the legislative level, too.

Angela Browning: We are a United Kingdom, and long may we remain so. It becomes increasingly obvious, however, that in terms of status and recognition, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, not only in our constitution but in the proceedings of the House, have a discrete identity of their own. I feel that the Government have now started to divide England up. As a Member representing an English constituency, may I say that now that they have started the process of regionalisation, England too should be afforded the same recognition? Can time please be set aside for debates on issues that concern those of us who represent English constituencies and who recognise English matters? In the interest of fairness and justice, the time for that is now.

Peter Hain: There are plenty of such opportunities. The advantage that the hon. Lady, for example, has as an English MP over me and my colleagues who are Welsh MPs is that she can question and challenge Ministers across the board on English matters, whereas many policies have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, and Assembly Members are in the driving seat and in pole position to question and challenge in that regard. She therefore has considerable advantages, which she ought to recognise. On the question of dividing up Britain, we have united the nations of Wales and Scotland much more in the United Kingdom through devolution than would have been the case had the opportunity to govern their own affairs through the devolution settlement been denied to them still. It has been a huge success, and I believe that regional government for England will be an equally huge success in the future.

Tony Lloyd: Can we have an early statement on the kidnap of British nationals by a foreign Government? I refer specifically to those British nationals who have been held in Guantanamo Bay without charge against them for an unacceptably long time. I remind my right hon. Friend that there are reports now of suicide attempts among those held in Guantanamo Bay, and there are rumours that the Americans plan to build what has been described as a "death chamber". We ought to have some certainty about the future of British nationals being held in this outrageous fashion.

Peter Hain: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the matter and is looking into it. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend has made and the close interest that he has taken in these matters.

Rail Fares

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about rail fares.
	The Strategic Rail Authority will be setting out in detail the results of its consultation later today, but I thought that I should set out the changes for the benefit of the House.
	Last July, the SRA initiated a fundamental review of rail fares policy. Today, after public consultation, it is publishing its conclusions, which I believe reflect a realistic balance between what the travelling passenger pays and what the taxpayer contributes.
	First, let me set out the context. We inherited a railway that had suffered from decades of under-investment and was left traumatised by a botched privatisation and the upheavals that followed. At the same time, because of economic growth and because we have got more people into work, passenger use has gone up by a third in the past few years. In fact, it is now at its highest level since nationalisation in 1947.
	We set up the Strategic Rail Authority to provide the leadership and strategic direction that had been lacking to get a grip on the problems that we inherited. Network Rail, a public interest company, is now operating the track in the public's interest. We are also making funding available to make up for decades of under-investment. This year, the Government are spending £73 million every week to improve the railways, and bringing in a similar amount from the private sector. We have the biggest replacement programme for rolling stock ever seen in this country: more than a third of all rolling stock is being replaced in five years, and about half of that is happening on London commuter routes. Some £9 billion is being spent to maintain and improve the west coast main line, which is enabling more services to run faster, and £3 billion is being spent on new trains and a new power supply south of the Thames, which, when complete, will allow for more services and longer trains. All this has to be paid for.
	Performance has improved but there is still a long way to go, which is why we have needed to take sometimes difficult decisions to improve the reliability of services. The House may recall that earlier this year we took a lot of criticism for the cuts that the SRA made to the timetable. It cut 180 services from the 18,000 train services that run every day. It is early days yet, but the evidence is that the decision was right. In the first four weeks of the new timetable, the performance of Virgin Cross Country trains was significantly better than at the same time last year, and despite the removal of some services, there are still more Virgin Cross Country services running every weekday than there were a year ago.
	We now reach another difficult and necessary decision in relation to rail fares. When the current rail fares policy was introduced in 1996, it was always intended for it to be reviewed after seven years. The SRA launched that review last year with a public consultation, and its conclusions are available in the Vote Office.
	Let me explain the existing fares arrangements on which the SRA consulted. About 45 per cent. of rail fares revenue comes from regulated fares, which are saver fares—or standard returns if no saver existed in 1995—standard class weekly tickets and London commuter fares. Since 1999, they have increased annually at 1 per cent. below inflation. Forty per cent. of people travelling to work in central London go by train, so the regulation of commuter and certain other fares is very important. That is why fare regulation will remain in place. Of course, the House will know that there are many far cheaper fares available than the regulated fares. Saver fares, for example, are not necessarily the cheapest deal on offer. The majority of fare income comes from unregulated fares, which include open and first class tickets as well as Apex and other low-price fares at off-peak times, many of which are now much cheaper than they were in the past.
	The consultation showed that there was wide agreement that the existing policy needed to change. The Rail Passengers Council, the industry and local authorities all said that continuing to peg regulated fares below inflation was simply not sustainable.
	There are only two main sources of funding for the railways: fares and the taxpayer. We have to strike the right balance between what the passenger pays and what the taxpayer pays. No nation in Europe has a passenger railway that runs without any form of subsidy, and nor do the United States or even Japan. Four years ago, rail fares covered 72 per cent. of the cost of running and improving the railway. That is now down to around 53 per cent., and the taxpayer pays the rest.
	As I said, we have to ensure that there is a reasonable balance between what the taxpayer pays and what the farepayer pays. The SRA concluded that regulated fares should continue but that they should rise by 1 per cent. more than inflation—the retail prices index—from January 2004 for three years. It also examined the link between fares and performance. The mechanism put in place at the time of privatisation was supposed to link performance and ticket prices, but it has been widely discredited and there is no support for its continuation.
	Finally the SRA's review considered the scope of regulated fares. There are two considerations on the regulation of saver fares. First, they are not necessarily the cheapest fare—the name is somewhat misleading. Secondly, they can result in the first off-peak trains being far more crowded than peak trains. Therefore, the SRA will work with train operators with a view to replacing the existing regime by 2006 with a better one that is more suited to passengers' needs. Saver fares will continue until 2006 unless it is possible to introduce a better regime earlier, provided that the proposal demonstrates clear benefits for passengers and taxpayers.
	I believe that we need to do still more to encourage more people to travel by train, which is why I am asking the SRA and the industry to work together to develop a national discount rail card to achieve that. It is also why we are investing in the network. In the past few years, public spending on investment has increased by 164 per cent. We have taken the difficult decision that in future it is reasonable for fares to increase in line with investment. The franchise agreements that are in place mean that every extra £1 raised as a result of what has been announced today will go back into the railway network.
	This was a difficult decision, but it is essential to strike the right balance between the contribution from the farepayer and the contribution from the taxpayer. We are sorting out the problems that we inherited. We are making the changes that we need to improve reliability and we are putting in place the investment vital for passengers and the future of the railway. I commend the statement to the House.

Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his customary courtesy in letting me have an advance copy.
	Let me begin with two points on which I hope there will be broad agreement throughout the House. First, many passengers would be prepared to pay more for a better service, and secondly, an expanding rail system would be better for both safety and the environment. However, surely it is clear that that is precisely what is not on offer and what will not be delivered by the fare rises that the Secretary of State announced. Is he not asking passengers and taxpayers to pay more and more for less and less? Is he not replacing fares that are falling in real terms with fares that will rise in real terms? Does he concede that British rail fares are already the highest in Europe and that he said today that he wants them higher still? Yet, is he not presiding over a halt—indeed, a reversal—of rail expansion as many major infrastructure projects are shelved as money for the long term is gobbled up by the complete collapse of day-to-day cost control of the maintenance budget?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the cuts to Virgin Cross Country services to which he referred are just the start? Will he confirm that further cutbacks on other rail franchises are in the pipeline and tell us today which services will be chopped? Will he confirm that he has abandoned the target in the 10-year transport plan of a 50 per cent. increase in rail passenger numbers?
	Why are there more late-running trains now than before? The Secretary of State cannot blame a lack of long-term investment, because train performance was much better three years ago than it is now. He cannot blame the Conservative party, because even 18 months ago his predecessor said:
	"There can be no more excuses. It's our responsibility. We can't blame the Tories any more."
	He cannot blame the Hatfield crash in 2000, because train performance was better in 2001 than in 2002.
	The Secretary of State has come up with a new explanation. He says that trains are late because there are too many of them, so he is axing a lot. He might be on to a point, because even I cannot deny that a train cannot arrive late if it does not set out at all. Do passengers not deserve better than that? Surely the real truth is that trains are running later while we are all paying more because of the Government's botched renationalisation of Railtrack.
	Network Rail is expected to overspend its budget by a staggering £12 billion in the period to 2006. Will the Secretary of State confirm the Financial Times report that if Network Rail accounted for its assets in the same way as Railtrack, its losses in the past financial year would not have been the reported £290 million but £2.5 billion? Does he agree with the verdict of the rail regulator that the problem with Network Rail is that a complete absence of financial discipline has produced an explosion in costs?
	If passengers and taxpayers are wondering why all that extra money, all those extra fares that the Secretary of State has announced and all the money that he is spending like water are buying a worse service, not a better one, has not The Daily Telegraph this morning provided the answer? Does he expect Back Benchers on either side of the House to be happy to discover that his Department will be footing a bill for £58,000—more than any Back Bencher's salary—just for the taxis hired by one of his sets of advisers for the period when Railtrack was in administration?
	Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that one signalling company told me that under Network Rail it costs more than £50,000 to apply for a simple contract to move one signal box 6 ft? Will he recognise that, although Conservative Members accept that there can be no return to Railtrack—not least because of what his Government did to its shareholders—taxpayers, shareholders and fare-paying passengers alike deserve none the less something a great deal better than the shambles that Network Rail has become under his supervision?
	Today the Secretary of State said that he will replace fares falling in real terms with fares rising in real terms; replace an expansion in train services with a cutback in rail services; and replace falling subsidies paying for more trains with rising subsidies paying for fewer trains. Under him, we have later trains, fewer trains, and now, vastly more expensive trains. Is that not the worst bargain in Britain? Is it not clear that we do not have the promised integrated transport policy, but instead a disintegrated transport policy? Do passengers and taxpayers alike not deserve the full-time energies of a full-time Secretary of State to sort out that complete shambles?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman would have a little more credibility—no wonder he is laughing—if he had a single policy to his name or a single strategy that he thinks would improve things.
	Railtrack was a disaster for the railways. If privatisation was bad, what Railtrack did in the years when it was in charge was disastrous. There was no proper cost control and it did not understand its assets. We have to get on and deal with that legacy. Network Rail, to its credit, is doing things that Railtrack never did. For example, it is getting proper control of the costs, understanding the state of the network and ensuring that it can deliver a safe and reliable railway. Of course that will take time and of course people are frustrated, but the hon. Gentleman did not have a single word to say about what he would do except to hark back, rather fondly I thought, to Railtrack. The friends of Railtrack are a very small group, even smaller than the present Tory parliamentary party.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said that if passengers are to pay more, they should expect improvements. Let me give examples of improvements. On London commuter lines, brand new rolling stock has replaced the old slam-door stock on the London Victoria to Brighton line. Something like 2,000 new railway carriages are in place, with more on order. In addition, a new electricity supply is being installed south of the river. I mention that because it comes back to Railtrack's performance. Anyone who knew that brand new, more powerful trains were coming on to the line should have thought about the electricity supply that was installed in the 1930s and asked whether it would be capable of running modern trains. Of course it was not capable of that, which meant that Network Rail had to find another £1 billion to put things right.
	The west coast main line is receiving investment now. The improvements are disruptive while they take place, but as a result of the decisions we took last year, the work will be finished two years earlier than expected. An hour will be taken off the Glasgow journey. There will be a two-hour running time to Manchester and four trains an hour to Birmingham. That is an example of how improvements are coming on.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about changes to Virgin services. It is essential to have a timetable that works, but not all the delays and problems of reliability are caused by congestion. Issues such as fleet reliability must also be taken into account. For example, when GNER completed the upgrading of all its locomotives on the east coast main line, it improved reliability dramatically. Frankly, the railway is doing now what it should have been doing years ago: managing the system as one railway.
	It is pretty clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is against fares increasing. That is a credible position to take, but one of two things follows from that: either taxes have to go up to pay for the investment or, more likely, wholesale cuts in services—perhaps of 20 per cent.—will be necessary. At some stage, he will have to face up to reality. The money for the railways comes from two places: the fare-paying passengers or taxation. If he is against fares increasing, either taxes have to go up or services have to be cut. One day, perhaps he will tell us which it is.

Don Foster: I welcome without reservation the Secretary of State's proposals for a national discount rail card, which is long overdue. However, given that rail fares have already risen significantly above the rate of inflation, and the cost of motoring has fallen, how can he seriously believe that further fare increases will persuade people to get out of their cars and on to rail so that we start to reduce the remorseless increase in congestion on our roads? Where is the joined-up thinking? Have not rail passengers in the south-east already seen a significant increase in fares as a result of changes to the network rail card? That was a fare increase by stealth.
	Surely the Secretary of State must acknowledge that he is giving the impression that he wants to manage the railways to improve reliability by significantly reducing the number of trains, and to reduce costs by significantly reducing the number of passengers by constantly ratcheting up the fares of those services. In the case of managed franchises and those non-managed franchises through the fares incentive adjustment programme, surely he must also acknowledge that the vast majority of the money from increased fares will go directly back into the SRA.Will he at least give an absolute assurance that we will not have a grand announcement from the Secretary of State some time in the future about yet more Government investment in the railways, when everyone knows that that money will have come from fare-paying passengers?
	The Secretary of State says that we must face up to realities, so why is his statement devoid of any reference to the urgent need to address escalating costs within the railways? Is he not aware of the significant increase in the number of managers within the train operating companies? Is he not aware of the significant increase in the number of staff and in the use of consultants by the SRA? Is he not aware of the astronomical costs that are charged for renewal and maintenance on our railways? He himself acknowledged that it costs four times as much to build a lift shaft on the railways as it would to build it anywhere else. Why is that not the crucial and first priority of the Government when they tackle the problems on our railways?
	We may well have one of the worst rail services in Europe. We certainly have the highest fares in Europe, if not the world. Yet under this Government, train cancellations have increased by 50 per cent. and delays have doubled. Surely if we are to increase rail fares further above the rate of inflation, passengers will simply pay more and get significantly less.

Alistair Darling: Again, the hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that he has not advocated an alternative way to improve the railways. I happened to notice that in relation to spending, the Liberal Democrats' economic spokesman made it clear that they pledge to do everything they can within current budgets. In other words, no more money is available. I also notice that they have to decide whether new pledges could be better delivered by the private sector as a first port of call. I think that came as something of a surprise to him and some of his colleagues.
	On escalating costs, as I have acknowledged many times, it is essential for the whole industry—not just Network Rail, but the train operating companies as well—to get a grip of the costs. I understand some of the historical problems they face. To be fair for one moment to Railtrack, part of the regime it inherited from British Rail also had the problem that costs for installing points varied from region to region, between different parts of British Rail, because the unit costs were very different. It is only now, under a completely different management with different disciplines, that Network Rail is beginning to get to grips with those costs and starting to drive them down. However, we cannot get away from the fact that it is necessary to make up for decades of under-investment. The reason we are spending £73 million of public money at the moment is that we have to make up for the deficit in investment that we inherited. BR used to replace 500 miles of track a year. Under privatisation, only 200 miles of track a year were replaced. This year, 740 miles of track are being replaced or upgraded. The money is essential, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about cost control.
	As for prices and getting passengers on to trains, I said at the outset that the British railway system is carrying more passengers now than at any time since nationalisation in 1947, and there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of passengers. One reason is that the fares on offer are not simply the standard or regulated fares. For example, the standard class return fare for the London to Bristol journey is £80, the regulated saver fare is £36.40, and the Apex fare is £19. There are many examples of cheaper fares, and many passengers, from both the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, are taking advantage of them.
	We are sorting out the management problems that the hon. Gentleman referred to and putting the money in, so reliability is slowly but surely improving. Of course, there is a long way to go, but neither he nor the Conservative party has a coherent or credible policy.

Geraint Davies: Half the people in Croydon who go to work commute to London, so obviously they will not welcome any increase in fares. However, can you reassure my constituents that the extra money that is being gathered will be reinvested in more reliable, frequent and comfortable trains? Will you also undertake to make a review of regional—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.

Geraint Davies: Thank you very much for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In giving those assurances, will my right hon. Friend undertake to review regional variations in fares across the country to ensure that people in London and the south-east get a fair deal?

Alistair Darling: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the money raised by those increases will go back into the railway network. As for Croydon, I mentioned earlier that about half of the new rolling stock is coming on to the London commuter routes, much of it on services that run through Croydon, so if they have not already done so, my hon. Friend and his constituents will be able to use new, modern rolling stock. I accept that they will not immediately see the benefits of replacing the power supply, but they will experience an improvement, as delays and breakdowns will be avoided. All of us want more to be done quickly, but our difficulty is that we have to do an awful lot because of decades of neglect of our railway system by successive Governments.

John Wilkinson: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman, who will be viewed by Londoners as the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than the Secretary of State for Transport, that Londoners are getting a dreadful deal from the Government? Is it not preposterous that in the capital city, which already has the highest cost of living in Europe, Londoners should face over the next three years an increase in rail fares of 1 per cent. above inflation, whereas it used to be 1 per cent. below inflation? They have no assurance that they will get a better deal in future—all they know is that a review will be undertaken in three years' time of the regulated fare system. Judging from the Secretary of State's track record, there is no chance that they will get a more cost-effective deal in future.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact that during the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in government, they did not make the necessary year on year investment that might have prevented some of those problems. The one big contribution that they made to the railways was privatisation, which was an utter shambles.
	As for London commuter services, new rolling stock and carriages are being introduced, thus improving the quality of transport. As I said, we are replacing the power supply south of the river. That should have been done years ago, but was not, because nobody thought it necessary. Improvements are being made, but the hon. Gentleman must come back to the central point, as must the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). If the hon. Gentleman believes that passengers should not pay any more, one of two things follows—either taxes go up to pay for that or services are cut. He must choose.

Brian H Donohoe: Surely, if we have to accept price increases, the service should improve. New infrastructure has been successfully introduced in my part of the world, but problems have been identified in two areas. First, at the busiest times, trains arrive consisting of three carriages instead of six. Secondly, again as a result of the railways' success, station car parks are full by 7 am. Can my right hon. Friend put more emphasis on those matters when talking to the Strategic Rail Authority?

Alistair Darling: One problem that we face—in some ways it is welcome—is that more people want to use the trains, but they are trying to use a system that was never designed for the current passenger load. That is why we are putting more money into the railways and replacing rolling stock. My hon. Friend's constituents will benefit, on some occasions at least, from the money that is going into the west coast main line. Local services are also receiving new money. Nobody would take lightly a decision to put up fares, but it is equally clear that the regime set up in 1995 was not sustainable. Interestingly, no significant body of opinion consulted by the SRA thought that it was. The Rail Passengers Council, for example, said that fares ought to go up in line with inflation. Nobody argued that the regime set up in 1995 was going to last, which I suspect is why the previous Government thought that it ought to be reviewed after seven years.

George Young: In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the need to strike a balance between the interests of farepayers and of taxpayers. He is right, of course, but is there not a need to strike another balance, which he did not mention, between the cost of travelling by public transport and the cost of travelling by private transport? If we want a balanced and sustainable transport policy, is it not important that the cost of travelling by public transport does not rise faster than the cost of travelling by private transport? Is it not a consequence of his announcement that that is exactly what will happen? The signal that he is giving people who are thinking of switching from private transport to public transport has changed from green to amber.

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman, I presume, is not arguing for an increase in motoring costs. If he is, I do not think that he will do so in his constituency. However, he is right that people make choices, which is why, two or three weeks ago, in common with a number of other people, I said that we needed to look at the question of road transport, how we can better manage demand for road space and so on. That is a long-term issue, but it clearly needs to be looked at. If people are to be encouraged to go on to the trains, reliability is paramount—if the trains are not reliable, they will not win more passengers. Relative costs are important, but as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), many fares are not regulated. In fact, the majority of income comes from non-regulated fares, which offer very good deals for passengers and are one reason why train usage has gone up so much.

Louise Ellman: The Secretary of State referred to discussions with train operators. Does he agree that it is also important for the SRA to consult passenger committees and regional authorities so that it can deliver a rail service that meets economic, environmental and social objectives? Has he had time to look at the Select Committee's report on railways in the north, which was published this morning? If so, can he explain how the fares policy announced today will relate to making an improved service for people in the north?

Alistair Darling: I have not had an opportunity to read that report. However, I am aware that there are a number of things that need to be done in relation to rail travel in the north. First, we must improve the reliability of the fleet, as there has been a problem with some trains in the north. Secondly, we must ensure that the track is reliable and is not prone to breakdowns. However, my hon. Friend is right that there are other issues, and local authorities and passenger transport executives can play a major role in ensuring that rail travel is attractive. Price is another factor, but we must ensure that the service is reliable and an attractive alternative to the car. If we can do that, we will get more people to use it.
	I am pleased that there is much evidence, not least from the Mersey train service, that reliability has improved and, in the case of that service, reached approximately 90 per cent. A few years ago, reliability was bad, so we have an example of how things can be done.

Norman Baker: Is not the Secretary of State embarrassed to tell my constituents that they face an increase in ticket costs that is above inflation? Since 1974, the cost of rail travel has increased by 85 per cent. in real terms, whereas that of motoring has decreased. Is it his policy to increase rails fares and decrease motoring costs? The Government deal with congestion on roads by building more roads, and with congestion on trains by having fewer trains. Money spent on railways is considered to be subsidy, whereas that spent on roads is perceived as investment. Is not that a topsy-turvy transport policy?

Alistair Darling: Not really. I look forward to visiting Lewes to hear the hon. Gentleman advocate increasing the price of motoring to his constituents.

Norman Baker: He will hear that.

Alistair Darling: Sotto voce, I expect. The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been substantial investment—some £3 billion—in trains south of the river. The investment is in new rolling stock as well as track improvements. As I said, that must be paid for. The money can come only from the fare-paying passenger or from taxation. There is no other way. That is why he and others who believe that we are wrong or that there is a better way must state the source of income that they favour. Perhaps, like the Tories, they should be upfront and say that they would cut the available services.

David Lepper: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about a national rail card and the investment in new rolling stock. However, many of my constituents, who constitute the captive cashbox for South Central trains and commute daily from Brighton—a high housing cost area—to London, will find it difficult to understand the increase in train fares. Will he consider reviewing the system of inflation plus 1 per cent. earlier than the three-year deadline that he specified? Will he also require the train operating companies and Network Rail to set out a clear timetable for the improvements that the investment brings so that my constituents understand what they will get for their money?

Alistair Darling: I travelled on the London to Brighton line recently. My hon. Friend knows that it has new rolling stock, which is expensive, good and reliable. Unfortunately, as is the way of things, it must be paid for. As I said earlier, it can be financed from only one of two sources. The price of an annual season ticket for London to Brighton will increase by approximately £2 a week as a result of my announcement today. I know that any increase is unwelcome, but if we are to invest the money that we need in the railways—in the track, the power supply or the stock—it must be financed. We cannot get away from that. A railway cannot be upgraded and improved for nothing.
	I wish that successive Governments—in the past, Labour Governments were as guilty as Tory Governments—had done the same as other countries and ensured that we invested money in the railways decade after decade. Our problem is that we now have to make up for years of underinvestment quickly.
	I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the rail card, but my announcement on fares is for three years, and I cannot undertake to reconsider the matter before the end of that time.

Bob Spink: The Secretary of State's price-volume analysis is wrong. If we increase the number of passengers, we increase the funds. We should therefore increase capacity, not fares. Fenchurch Street passengers have suffered too long. Will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority to consider a new terminus station at Canvey Island, which would create an increase in capacity, with a link to the Pitsea interchange, and to reduce c2c fares so that Fenchurch Street passengers can get the decent deal that they deserve?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentions c2c. He knows that the line is one of the most reliable in the country and has much improved from the misery line that it once was. That happened through investment, which had to be financed, and through better management.
	I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about wanting a new station in his constituency. It never ceases to amaze me that Conservative Members oppose raising money but greatly favour spending it. They have obviously been listening to the Liberal Democrats. If we support improvements such as those on c2c, and want more stations and better interchanges, they must be paid for. I have tried to strike the right balance between what the fare-paying passenger and the taxpayer pay. It is not easy, but it is right to ensure that the balance is fair and sustainable.

Claire Ward: I welcome the negotiations and discussions on the national rail card. Many of my constituents are commuters and railway users. They will want to know that the increase in rail fares means a better service than the current service, not only on commuter services but on the west coast main line. I am worried that, as we increase rail fares, we may also increase the number of people on the roads. An individual is six times more likely to be killed or injured on the roads than on the rails. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the additional health, social services and benefits costs to the taxpayer that will result from the rail fare increase?

Alistair Darling: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the national rail card. I am sure that it will be valuable and another useful way in which to encourage more people to use trains.
	The west coast main line illustrates my point. When the improvements are completed—the first wave will be evident from the end of next year—they will allow more trains to run into Euston, greater frequency and far more capacity. After a back-of-an-envelope calculation, Railtrack believed that such improvements would cost £2 billion. By the time the company left, the figure had increased to £13 billion. The current cost, according to Network Rail and the SRA, is £9 billion. That is a huge investment, which will make a huge difference to my hon. Friend's constituents and to commuter lines as well as long-distance lines on the west coast.
	Again, I stress that the investment must be financed, one way or another. Our transport system—not only the railways but the roads—faces tremendous financial pressures not only on the railways but on the roads. If we want to get more people on trains, we must ensure that the trains are reliable, comfortable and an attractive alternative to cars. We can and will do that but we need to face the fact that we must get the right, reasonable balance between what the taxpayer and the passenger pay.

Vincent Cable: How far have the Secretary of State's remit and financial calculations taken Eurostar's growing crisis into account? Unless tackled, uncompetitive fares, decreasing usage and massive losses will quickly lead to demands for a large-scale Government rescue operation.

Alistair Darling: I would not bank on that. Eurostar has to ensure that it gets its finances in order and that it runs a sufficiently attractive proposition to get passengers. The channel tunnel rail link, which is the first major new rail line in Britain for more than 100 years, will open later this year, and enable faster journey times between London, Paris and Brussels. That should give the train company an opportunity to attract more passengers.

Tam Dalyell: As an annual guest at the quarterly meeting of the RMT Scottish at Perth, what should I sensibly say about the balance between the 72 per cent. four years ago and the 53 per cent. today? What is the ideal balance that the Secretary of State supports?
	As a supporter of the national discount rail card, may I ask when it is likely to be introduced and what the Secretary of State hopes it will achieve?
	As a member of the friends of Nirex—a body that is even smaller than the friends of Railtrack—I ask my right hon. Friend what his attitude is to charging for the transfer by rail of hazardous substances?

Alistair Darling: On the last point, it might be better if I were to write to my hon. Friend rather than trying to hazard a guess as to what the position might be. I agree that the rail card will be very welcome, but the object must be to encourage people who do not use trains at present to use them with the card. We want to avoid a situation in which people who would have made a rail journey anyway use the card, so that the Government have to subsidise the journey unnecessarily. The object must be to get more people on to the trains. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that one of the objectives must be to get people who do not use the railway to use it. The discounts now being offered by GNER on return tickets mean that they can be bought for a remarkably small amount, and that is one of the reasons why the trains are so crowded. The other reason is that, thanks to a large amount of money being spent on the track, journey times are improving and the service is becoming more reliable.
	My hon. Friend asked me what he should say to the RMT. I can think of many things that might be said to the RMT, but sadly, I have not been invited to address it. There is no ideal scientific balance between what the fare-paying passenger should pay and what the taxpayer should pay. I just think that it has got out of balance at the moment. I know that people do not want this increase, but unless we take steps to ensure a proper, sustainable balance, we shall reach the stage at which the railways start to run out of money. When the Conservatives privatised things, I believe that they envisaged that the railways would decline and run out of money, which is why they were not that bothered about it. I believe in the railways, however, and I am determined to ensure that they are properly managed and properly funded.

Roger Casale: My constituents in south-west London want to see much more money being spent on the rail service. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that if we are to do this not only through increased public investment but through limited fare increases, we need a service that is not only reliable and efficient but much more responsive to customer needs? If, having waited in a queue for 15 minutes because stations are understaffed and the automatic ticket machines are not working, customers are unable to get the through ticket that they need, we are unlikely to see the benefit of those increased fares, because many people will choose not to travel by rail at all.

Alistair Darling: I agree: the whole experience of going by train needs to be attractive. People do not want to be held up, and they do not want the trains to be late. At least some of my hon. Friend's constituents will be pleased to know that South West Trains is about to introduce a new fleet of trains, which will be a vast improvement on the old slam-door trains that should have been replaced years ago. I suspect that those trains were running when he and I were children, if not before. That is a welcome investment, but I return to the same point: people will welcome all this new investment, and reliability will improve, but in their heart of hearts, people know that we have to put money into the system, and that it has to be paid for in some way—either through fares or through taxation. However, I strongly agree with everything that has been said today about the industry having to understand that if it does not get a grip on reliability and costs, it will face an uphill struggle. Based on what I have seen, however, I am optimistic. I know that this will take time, and there are no quick fixes, but I believe that it can be done. Indeed, for the good of the transport system in this country, it needs to be done.

BILL PRESENTED

Corporate Responsibility

Linda Perham presented a Bill to make provision for certain companies to produce and publish reports on environmental, social and economic and financial matters; to consult on proposed operations of the company; to specify certain duties and responsibilities of directors; to establish a right of access to information held by companies; to specify the powers and duties of the Secretary of State; to provide for remedies for aggrieved persons; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 129].

Point of Order

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Very unusually, we are about to debate the conduct of investigations into past cases of abuse in children's homes. In the recent reshuffle, a Minister for Children was appointed for the first time. Surely this subject should fall within her remit, but the Minister for Children, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) is not here. Furthermore, there was an amazing attack on the hon. Lady in the Evening Standard on Monday—I do not know whether it was justified or not—which particularly pertained to the conduct of investigations into child abuse in children's homes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order straight away. It is entirely a matter for the Government whom they seek to put on the Treasury Bench to represent them in debates such as these. ESTIMATES DAY

[3rd Alloted Day]

ESTIMATES, 2003–04
	 — 
	Children's Homes (Investigations)
	 — 
	HOME OFFICE

[Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Home, HC836, and the Government's reply thereto (Cm. 5799); and the Home Office Annual Report for 2003 (Cm. 5908).]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That further resources, not exceeding £17,181,299,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,391,463,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Home Office.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

David Winnick: This debate was due to be opened by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who, as the House knows, was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee up to his Government appointment last week. He has gone on to higher things—or lower, as the case may be. I have agreed to carry out the Chairman's duties on a temporary basis until a permanent replacement is duly appointed by the Committee.
	Let me say at the outset that this report in no way minimises child abuse. Acts of abuse, physical and sexual, are indeed dreadful crimes, often leading to lasting damage and trauma to individuals. The police are certainly right to treat it with the utmost seriousness, and we would all be disappointed if that were not the case. However, it is also important that justice should be done and that the innocent should not be convicted. The Committee received a large number of representations from people accused of child abuse who maintain their innocence, from their relatives, and from journalists, lawyers and colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who I see is here today, also made vigorous representations to us on this issue. I understand that she is chair of the all-party group on abuse investigations.
	Members of the judiciary have also expressed concern. In our report we quote Judge Jonathan Crabtree, who, in 1999, having dismissed all charges against a defendant, expressed serious concerns over the difficulties of defending such allegations. This quote from the judge appears in our report:
	"Anyone who is in charge of children is vulnerable to allegations of assault from some dissatisfied or angry child, and if no complaint is made for months or years, how can any teacher, social worker, nurse defend themselves? . . . How is he or she going to be able to . . . prove his or her innocence when so much time has passed?"
	In recent years, the police have investigated large numbers of allegations of abuse said to have occurred many years ago in children's homes around the country. Part of the difficulty is that such allegations go back so many years. The number of alleged suspects has been very large, and many lives have been damaged by the allegations, even in cases in which no charges were brought.
	The allegation of child abuse is easily made, but it is very difficult to recover from, even if the person concerned is vindicated as a result of police inquiries or before a court. In some instances, accused teachers or care workers—however vindicated—may never work again.

Alan Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the work that they have done. To highlight what he is saying, the Committee has pointed out that in the Northumbria police area, where Operation Rose was carried out, 60 people were arrested but only five have been successfully prosecuted, with three cases outstanding. That adds up to a very large number of people whose lives have been ruined and whose career prospects have been destroyed.

David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
	In the last five years, 34 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales have been involved in investigations into allegations of abuse in children's homes and other institutions. I want to emphasise, on behalf of the Committee, that we do not criticise the police for doing this. Indeed, all hon. Members would agree that they would be criticised if they did not carry out their duties when allegations were made. In Merseyside alone, the police investigated 510 former care workers suspected of child abuse. Of those, 67 individuals were charged, leading to 36 convictions and nine acquittals. The remaining 22 cases were discontinued or dismissed in court. These investigations have had a very high failure rate. The Crown Prosecution Service rejects no less than 79 per cent. of cases referred by the police, against an average of 13 per cent. for all types of charge. I would have thought that those statistics should set alarm bells ringing.
	Child abuse cases differ from other criminal investigations in several ways, and we learned a lot as a result of our inquiry. First, they relate to events that may or may not have occurred 10, 20 or, indeed, 30 years ago. That gives rise to obvious questions of identification. For instance, there have been cases in which it has been shown that the accused was not working in a care home when his accuser was there. Often, such a conclusive defence is possible only because the relevant records have been preserved. What would have happened if they had not?

Dominic Grieve: It is indeed a feature, which appears in the report, that in many cases the documents have been destroyed, notwithstanding the rule that documents and records need to be preserved in the case of child care for the rest of the child's life.

David Winnick: Yes. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point, because it is indeed relevant and people's reputations, as well as whether they end up in prison, could depend on records being preserved.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes the poor state of such records, as well as the fact that some may have been destroyed or are partial, can undermine the evidence given by children making allegations of abuse? Evidence that might have supported their stories, which so often rely on their individual recollections, may be missing. That, too, is a tragedy.

David Winnick: Again, that is a valid point, and surely it shows the need for records to be preserved. I do not think that there is any dispute about that.

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene at this stage. On the question of records, may I give him a practical example of how things can go badly wrong?
	In my county of Leicestershire a few years ago, the city of Leicester was separated to become a unitary authority. It established its own social services department. As a consequence, employees of the previous Leicestershire county council social services department had their employment records split between the city and the county. In a number of cases, that has led to the losing or misplacing of records relevant to, for example, Operation Magnolia, which took place in my county. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when he considers the question of the safe keeping of records?

David Winnick: Yes, I will. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I said to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), that it is important for those records to be kept. I repeat myself, but I hope that the Minister, as I am sure she will, takes on board what has been said from both sides of the House about the need for evidence and for records to be kept, both of which are important. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us an illustration of what can happen as a result of a local authority reorganisation.
	Secondly, there are cases with no physical evidence, no forensic material and no written records. Sometimes, even the building in question has been demolished. Thirdly, the prosecution case almost always relies on the word of the alleged victim or victims. Fourthly, the willingness of the court to accept what we describe as similar fact evidence—that is, corroboration by the quantity, rather than the quality, of similar accusations—has led the police to engage in what is called trawling.
	The police and the Home Office become rather disturbed or upset by the word "trawling", but that is the word that we have used. There is trawling using a wide net of former care home residents, which relates to finding out from a large circle of people, who were involved or not involved as the case may be, whether there is any evidence to support the allegations. There have been accusations that the police, at least in the early days of that practice, were rather careless in their corroboration of allegations.

Janet Dean: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we heard evidence in the Home Affairs Committee of original complainants dropping their case while others brought into the investigation by the police carried on with theirs, which went to court?

David Winnick: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
	David Rose, the special investigations reporter for The Observer, if not currently, then certainly in the past, is concerned about what he believes to be a number of miscarriages of justice. He has taken a prominent role, and some may have seen a television programme in which he featured. David Rose told us in oral evidence:
	"The problem with trawling as it is now carried out is that it is an absolutely unregulated process and it is a process which . . . is almost tailor-made to generate false allegations."
	Some may disagree with how Mr. Rose puts his point, but he certainly holds pretty strong opinions on the subject.

Gwyn Prosser: Does my hon. Friend remember receiving evidence of a clear indication that the basic police rules—the codes and guidance—are completely ignored during such trawling exercises? Does he recall a former children's home resident saying that he felt that he was bullied into making a complaint and that he was given the names of specific people from his former homes who had serious allegations against them? It was even suggested which forms of abuse had taken place. Does not that show how dangerous trawling is and how important it is to have video recording? Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that that has not been taken up?

David Winnick: We make our recommendation on the recording of questioning. I well recall the evidence given to us, which my hon. Friend mentions. It could be argued that the police are simply carrying out their duty in investigating those serious allegations. The police have a duty and responsibility in all these matters, although I am concerned that the Home Office response more or less dismisses the trawling situation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Winnick: I will give way in a moment. That situation is dismissed, and the police are rather sensitive to our using the word "trawling". I hope that the Minister takes on board the points that have been made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). I shall take the interventions fairly, so I give way first to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. Surely the point on so-called trawling is that children are desperately vulnerable. By definition, there is no corroborative evidence, except what can be found from trawling. Although the police should never carry out the activity suggested by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), if trawling were to discontinue, so would most genuine cases. The answer, surely, is to remove compensation payments, which genuinely throw up false claims.

David Winnick: I shall say whether we believe that trawling should continue, but I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who is a member of the Committee.

Marsha Singh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he think that the central problem of trawling is that when a case gets to court and there is a conviction, it leads to guilt based on the volume of allegations rather than the quality of the evidence?

David Winnick: I shall refer to trawling, but I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who takes a great interest in children's matters.

Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend not accept that someone who was abused as a child and has suppressed the memory of that abuse for a long time, perhaps because of threats they experienced during that abuse, would regard becoming the recipient of what could more fairly be called dip sampling as validation of their experience? They would have a real opportunity to unburden themselves of the abuse.

David Winnick: Let me say immediately that if a child has been abused, no matter how many years have passed since the event, those responsible must be brought to justice. I hope that nothing said by me or recommended by the Committee, and nothing in any speeches or interventions made today, will give the impression that we do not want that to happen. If my hon. Friend has balanced the argument in that regard, nothing but good can come of it.
	As I have said, we have reservations about trawling, but we do not think it should be prohibited, whatever name is given to it. My hon. Friend clearly wishes to give it a different name. We have emphasised that the police have a statutory duty to investigate allegations of child abuse regardless of whether they relate to contemporary or to past events.
	The waters are often muddied by the prospect of compensation. That is another aspect that the Committee was not happy about. It has been suggested that the desire for financial compensation has been a motivating factor in many accusations, and even that on occasion the police have mentioned the prospect of compensation to potential witnesses. We do not suggest that that is typical, but it is certainly a complicating factor.
	The Committee took evidence from a firm of lawyers which, at the time, was dealing with 20 group actions and 800 individual claims. Clearly child abuse allegations were big business to that firm, at least. I do not suggest that the firm was acting in a way that was not proper, but those facts must give rise to some concern about the way in which such cases are handled.

Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman has said that the firm was not behaving illegally, but does he agree that it was trawling for people whose cases it could take up in order to make a packet financially?

David Winnick: That may well be so. The evidence we were given shows that a former police officer was working for the firm at the time of our inquiry. We expressed some reservations about that.

Dominic Grieve: I assume that, given the changes in legal aid funding, the solicitors were handling the cases on a "no win, no fee" basis. A result favouring their clients would therefore have been of direct advantage to them.

David Winnick: Indeed.
	Paragraphs 109 to 115 deal with compensation, and explain the difference between claims pursued through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and those pursued through the civil courts. As might be expected, the firm of solicitors to whom I referred used the civil courts, in which there is no limit to the amount that can be paid in compensation. That does not apply under the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
	The Committee concluded that it was likely that a significant number of miscarriages of justice had occurred. My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that that is not the case, for that is the substance of the Government's response to our report. The report calls for clear prescriptive guidelines to cover future police investigations, and for proper recording of police interviews, which has already been mentioned. It also recommends that after 10 years prosecutions should proceed only with the court's permission, and states:
	"The use of similar allegations, as evidence to corroborate a charge"
	should be admitted only
	"if it bears a striking similarity to the evidence related to the charged offence".
	It recommends the drawing up of guidelines governing the relationship between the police and personal injuries solicitors.
	The Government's reply was published in April. I am sure that it will not surprise my hon. Friend the Minister to learn that, in the main, it was not as encouraging as we hoped it would be. It reflected, to an extent, the views expressed to the Committee by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Nevertheless, I am sure that we will all listen carefully to what the Minister says later.

Julian Brazier: Prohibiting the citing of other cases as corroborating evidence unless they were very similar to the case being dealt with would return us to a time when prosecutions were almost impossible. In those days a string of children would make allegations against an abuser. It would be his word against theirs, and because cases were often tried separately it was possible to clear him of every alleged offence, although the overall weight of evidence against him might be huge.

David Winnick: That is a point of view, but it should be seen alongside the need to be certain that those who are charged—and certainly those who are convicted—are guilty. None of us would like to be falsely charged and then imprisoned. What is important, ultimately, is for justice to be done.

Meg Munn: It is important to have clear evidence, but is it not also important to understand the nature of child sex abuse? Rather than relying on striking similarity, should we not view the evidence in the context of what we know child abusers do? They may begin with minimal abuse, which then becomes much more extensive. That might not constitute striking similarity, but it would fit the known pattern of behaviour among child abusers.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend's point has much in common with that made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
	Let me repeat what I said at the outset. Child abuse is undoubtedly a dreadful crime. We would not want our own children to be subjected to any form of abuse, and if we do not want that to happen to our own children, we do not want it to happen to any children. If convicted, those responsible—particularly those who are given the responsibility of looking after children by society and abuse their position—must of course go to prison. But however strongly we feel about that—and we in the House of Commons must obviously feel strongly about it—it is important that those who have not been responsible for child abuse should not find themselves in prison as a result of false allegations.
	We have looked into the matter, and we have recognised the complicating factors. Ultimately, however, we believe that there have been miscarriages of justice. We think that the introduction of certain changes would make it more difficult for innocent people to be sent to prison. I hope that my hon. Friend and other Ministers will consider our recommendations carefully. We made them in good faith, and, as I have said, on the clear understanding that those who abuse children should be duly punished; but we think that the changes we recommend would improve the overall position.

Tim Boswell: I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its report, and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his balanced account of it. I also—in anticipation, as it were—thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), with whom I serve as an officer on the all-party group on abuse investigations, for the painstaking and determined way in which she has pursued these issues and contributed to the Committee's evidence. She has, I think, helped to influence thinking on a difficult and sensitive matter.
	I welcome the new Minister to what is a demanding position, although I am less sympathetic to the Home Office's response to the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. As a number of us may have done, I came into the issue as a result of a case of a single constituent, who is in prison to this day, although his close family and friends continue to protest his innocence. I am aware of another case involving a constituent that has not hit the headlines. After much intrusive procedure—that person had a young family—he was eventually left in peace but with one charge left on the file as a settlement.
	The motivation, which has been properly set out by the acting Chairman of the Select Committee, should be simply to see a fair process in the judicial system. We should all make it clear to the Minister that we are not seeking to rehearse individual cases in this forum today. I thought that the Chairman's summary of the difficulties that are set out in the report was exemplary. I need only sketch them briefly.
	This all took place a long time ago. The evidence is likely to be all by word of mouth, with virtually no forensic evidence, unlike in, say, a modern case, where computer data, for example, may be brought in evidence. There are ample opportunities for, to use an old-fashioned phrase—it is a nasty practice that began under the Romans, so I use their word for it—dilation, informing, sneaking on people in order to damage them, whether or not there is justification for that, and for the settling of scores. There is also the element of compensation, which rightly concerned the Select Committee. There is the fact many of the witnesses or potential witnesses have had a chequered subsequent history such that their individual evidence may not be compelling and it has to be, as it were, bulked out in order to make a case. That is not to gainsay rightful probing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. We must strike the right balance.
	Perhaps the more general point I need to make is that no one in the House has a brief for the support of paedophiles or for sweeping such issues under the carpet, however long ago they may or may not have occurred.

Hilton Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that other factors relating to these issues concern the attitude of victims towards the abuse that they have suffered, and the shame, embarrassment, humiliation and difficulties that they have in expressing that often in a courtroom?

Tim Boswell: I have no problem with that; it is why the matter has to be dealt with very carefully and sensitively.
	I have no problem with a chief constable seeking not merely to meet targets to get people inside if they have done despicable things but making uncomfortable the undetected, silent offender who may not sleep well at night if he knows that he may be pursued on the matter, but all the evidence we have seen from other contexts is that paedophilia or suspicions thereof can engender uncontrolled emotions. Rage at the exploitation of children is understandable, but it may not always serve the interests of justice. In particular, the weighting of evidence may be miscalculated. Frankly, the burden of proof may be in some danger of reversal. The essential issue is whether, given that there have been cases which have resulted in a reversal or quashing of the verdict or a miscarriage of justice, there are other cases in consideration, some of which were brought before the Select Committee and others of which are known to the all-party group on abuse investigations.

Alan Beith: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's point about the reversal of the burden of proof, because it related to something I read in the Government's response, in which they use the extraordinary sentence:
	"Rarely is there clear substantiation that these allegations have indeed been deceptions."
	It may require a wet towel and careful study to try to make sense of that but it appears to mean that the burden of proof has been reversed.

Tim Boswell: The right hon. Gentleman is perceptive in that comment. There is still a lot of this about. There will, frankly, be more to come. The duty we need to set before the Home Office is to ensure that past cases are reviewed expeditiously and thoroughly and that the system takes more care in relation to future cases. I was not encouraged by the tone of the Government's response. I cite in evidence paragraph 10, for example, which states:
	"The Government therefore respects the views of the Committee"—
	it should do—
	"but does not share its belief in the existence of large numbers of miscarriages of justice."
	That statement may be formally unexceptionable but it implies that a few miscarriages of justice are all right, provided that most people were rightly convicted. I happen to take the view that one miscarriage of justice is unacceptable.

Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. Friend share perhaps some disquiet that paragraph 10 of the Government's response disagrees with the suggestion that a range of agencies are
	"unaware of these deceptions and/or unwittingly assist them; or are complicit in their fabrication"?
	In paragraph 36 of the report, a clear example is given of exactly that.

Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. My view is that we cannot ask or expect the police to back out of their duties to investigate historic allegations of abuse, or indeed current ones. Therefore, it is all the more important that such investigations should be carried out scrupulously and fairly. I also believe that the use of various tools as recommended by the Select Committee needs active consideration. I mention particularly video recording of witness evidence. I notice, for example, that at a recent meeting in the House in the context of persons with learning difficulties, vulnerable persons who may be victims even in such cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions suggested that there may be some virtue in video recording. I think that he is on the right lines.
	As the Government say in paragraph 35 of their response, and with this I found myself more in sympathy, a clear, accurate and, if I may add, comprehensive and unexpurgated record of approaches to witnesses should be established, whether or not that is in video form. I think that that would then be available to the defence on disclosure.
	There is an issue of balance on a matter that has not been much rehearsed so far: the issue of publicity and, in particular, celebrity evidence. I personally still incline to the view that we should withhold those names because the attraction of putting someone's name in the frame is just too great. Recently, the accuser of a former colleague of ours in the House has been sent to prison in that regard. Whether that results in a sufficient deterrent against that sort of practice I know not.
	The law of "similar fact", which is another matter on which the Select Committee commented and hence the Home Office responded, is another area of concern. Paragraph 55 of the Government's response states:
	"multiple accusations against an offender have a significance that derives from the unlikelihood that a person will be independently falsely accused of offences of a like nature."
	The crucial word is "independently". If it is a matter of 20 people, even people who are in prison currently, all independently saying that they remember that there was a problem with that person, I might understand it. However, if it is in response to a systemic inquiry that makes certain assumptions, I have less sympathy with it.

Meg Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to make inquiries of former residents of children's homes where allegations have been made in a way that does not name the suspected person and gives no indication of the particular concerns? That would be a valid process.

Tim Boswell: That is exactly the sort of proper practice with which I would have no difficulty. This is not a matter of sides. We are trying to tease out a common, good practice approach.
	I leave the House with three specific points.

Julian Brazier: Before my hon. Friend completes his speech, may I ask him to acknowledge that, until the various changes, many of which he has covered, took place, 15 years ago it was almost impossible to get convictions of child abusers? After a case in my constituency, the barrister said that she felt ashamed and disgusted that she had taken the case as it was so obvious that her client was guilty. The process in those days worked in such a fashion that he got off.

Tim Boswell: We have to seek a balance, but we cannot achieve it by swinging in the opposite direction and putting innocent people in prison.
	I have three concerns, and in setting them out I am trying to read the mind of the Home Office. First, in terms of the Home Office's own interests, it is wrong—although perhaps understandable—for it to try to defend the integrity of the judicial system by implying that everything is all right, and that it is therefore better not to rock the boat by asking such questions. Secondly, I am concerned as to whether there is an underlying and subtler point in relation to informers. Many people in prison are police informers or are otherwise compromised, as it were. Are we talking about a way of ensuring that they continue to supply information to police officers, perhaps in respect of other investigations that have nothing to do with sex abuse? [Interruption.] The Minister appears to be surprised by that suggestion; if she can make inquiries and in turn surprise me, I should be delighted. However, I am worried about this issue, and given that informers are registered, perhaps we should look into it further.
	My third and final concern is that the Home Office response will be seen as the green light to a series of fresh allegations. Frankly, it would not be difficult to extend this measure to cover not only abuse in child care homes but, for example, the several choirmasters who were recently implicated in various activities. And there is the wholly separate issue of cot deaths and sudden infant deaths, and whether people, once they get into this frame of mind, will start to look in an uncritical way and make accusations that cannot really be substantiated.
	It would be terrible if, through not building the right safeguards into our procedures and attitudes, we in this House had to revert to these issues after a series of judicial disasters, with all the wreckage that that might bring to the lives of individuals—whether or not anything had been done to them, whether or not they had committed offences themselves. We must be careful and ensure that the system delivers a fair outcome.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I want to begin by thanking the members of the Home Affairs Committee for having the courage to take on this very difficult inquiry. I must also point out that, like the other members of the all-party group on abuse investigations, I am not a paedophile-lover or an advocate of paedophiles. Properly convicted sex offenders are the most repugnant form of humanity. Our interest in historical abuse investigations has always centred not on the outcome of police investigations—on whether a person is guilty or innocent—but on the integrity of the processes used by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. To date, there is no way of independently checking the procedures used by either of those authorities.
	I am bitterly and hugely disappointed with the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report, which constituted virtually a total rejection of all of the recommendations, excluding those that concur with existing Government policy. I want to reply to the Government's response and to ask the Minister to think again.
	I want to bring to Members' attention a statement presented to the Home Affairs Committee by Mark Merett. It reads as follows:
	"I feel I must make this statement after spending three years at a children's home in South Wales, which is now at the centre of child abuse allegations. During my time at the school there was never any talk or rumour of child abuse, if anything of that nature had been going on everyone would have known about it. At night I shared a bedroom with three other boys who knew everything that was going on; if a burglary had been committed, everyone knew about it by breakfast time the next morning . . .
	I was interviewed by South Wales Police on three occasions and during these interviews I was amazed that the police openly named suspects who were known to me and they confirmed that these suspects had been named by other former residents. Even though I made the police aware of my medical condition (I am epileptic), they continued to pressurise me into making a complaint, which I did not do. I found the whole experience very distressing and I felt that I was being bullied by the police into making a complaint.
	I was horrified when I was asked during the interview, 'Did Mr B touch you up?, did he touch your penis? other people have complained that he did.'
	At this moment I was appalled and explained that nothing of that nature . . . went on at the school. The police pointed out that they had been in touch with other former residents who had made complaints. After hours of questioning, I still maintained that nothing ever happened to me, which is the truth."
	That is just one of many statements that we are aware of, and which say the same thing. In many ways, that statement is the source of our concerns, and with that in mind I must again congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its even-handed approach to this inquiry. Seventy-six people submitted memorandums to the Committee—they included barristers, solicitors, the falsely accused, journalists, representatives of social services departments, police authority representatives and even Members of Parliament—and responded constructively to the inquiry's terms of reference.
	I should remind Members that the cases that we are considering—historical sex abuse cases—arise from complainants' allegations of abuse in respect of incidents that took place up to 30 years ago. The complainants, who are now all adults, were cared for in care homes. The primary concern of members of the all-party group, endorsed by members of the Home Affairs Committee, is the way in which evidence from those individuals is obtained and recorded. Eight police authority inquiries have taken place throughout the UK in the past five years, involving—according to my own estimates—more than 20,000 complainants and probably in excess of 10,000 care workers and social workers, all of whom have been identified as suspects.
	I turn to the body of the report and my concerns about the adequacy of the Government's response. In paragraph 10 of the latter, the Government state:
	"The Committee's conclusions would appear . . . to have arisen from a combination of assumptions."
	One of those assumptions is that
	"Significant numbers of complainants are either serving prisoners or ex-offenders".
	The response continues:
	"The Government sees no evidence to support these assumptions".
	However, if they had so wished the Government could have used the resources at their disposal to substantiate those claims. Through the Association of Chief Police Officers, they could have asked the authorities engaged in these inquiries the following questions. How many of the complainants involved in these cases are known to the police? How many of them have been convicted? How many of them were interviewed in the highly inappropriate setting of a prison?

Hilton Dawson: I commend my hon. Friend for her zealous work on this difficult issue, but does the fact that someone has a criminal record, has been in prison or done reprehensible things throughout their life therefore invalidate their having been abused as a child?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: No, it certainly does not. However, had the Minister asked the police authorities to answer the questions to which I have just referred, she would have received answers that support those now at my disposal. The all-party group wrote to the solicitors representing men who claim that they are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, and obtained the following information. In respect of the 32 prosecutions in question, there were 282 complainants. Some 92 per cent. of these people were known to the police, 84 per cent. had convictions, and at least 34 per cent. were interviewed in prison.
	I state categorically that the vast majority of complainants in these cases are fundamentally dishonest and dishonourable men, some of whom have killed, stolen, and perjured themselves in court. That does not mean that they have not been sexually abused, but their reputations and integrity must be a source of concern, and investigators must consider their evidence and motivations.

Meg Munn: Would my hon. Friend accept that the process of being abused, and the fact that children have spent time in children's homes, enormously increases the likelihood that they will be involved in offending behaviour—precisely because it creates such difficulties for how their lives will proceed? It may be valid to examine the issue in detail, but my hon. Friend's overall condemnation of their character is rather too strong.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What I am addressing is a point made by the Government in their response to the Home Affairs Committee. Recommendations were based on the assumption that a large number of the complainants in these cases had criminal convictions, which might throw doubt on the testimony that they gave in court. Had the Government sought to find the evidence, they would have found, as we have, that the vast number of complainants in these specific cases do indeed have criminal records. As I have already said, that does not mean that they are not also at the same time victims of sexual abuse. However, the way in which we approach and manage such people must be carefully considered, because they are predisposed to being dishonest and have committed grave crimes. We must not forget that the vast majority of those who assert that they are innocent of the crimes of which they have been accused, have been convicted precisely by the evidence given by such people—sometimes just their oral testimony, with nothing else to corroborate it—with no physical evidence at all.

Hilton Dawson: rose—

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I will give way, but I am conscious that I must make progress.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful, as this is a really important point. Without going over all the ground again, would my hon. Friend accept that many people who have been through the care system and lived through abuse are now leading perfectly honest, decent and hard-working lives—they are, indeed, thoroughly decent members of our community?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I cannot argue with that: I do not have the statistics to demonstrate how many people coming out of care homes went on to live wholly honest and trustworthy lives. Unfortunately, only a very small number of such people are involved in these cases: 92 per cent. of those involved are known to the police, leaving only 8 per cent. not known to the police. I ask my hon. Friend to deduce from that what he will.
	Everything must be done to assess the way in which the victim is contacted and interviewed to ensure that the interview in process is not compromised either by the complainant or the police. I ask the Minister to ask the police authorities to confirm how many interviews with complainants were conducted in prison, and how often the police visited the same individuals? I know the answers to those questions, but does the Minister?
	In response to the Home Affairs Committee request for all interviews and interactions to be at least tape-recorded or video-recorded, I was disappointed to find that the Government said that "only some" should be, which is not good enough. The men, 92 per cent. of whom are known to the police, must be interviewed on tape, because their oral testimony—and perhaps only that testimony—could lead to a man being convicted for the rest of his life. Let us not forget the vast majority of the accused in these cases are retired men who have given their working lives to caring for vulnerable children whom their families have, for a variety of reasons, rejected.
	Many of the people writing to the all-party group assert that it is the dialogue between the police and the witness that leads to miscarriages of justice: that it is the police who lead and guide complainants to making complaints. I do not know whether there is any truth in those accusations, because there is no tape or video-recording of the crucial interviews that took place between the police and the complainants. There is no faithful report of what went on or what was said between them. What I do know is that successful prosecutions lead to big compensation pay-outs for individuals who appear in court or join class actions. The Minister could ask for details of those compensation pay-outs, but we have already heard that a Manchester company is dealing with 800 applications for compensation, which almost equates to the number of complainants who have risen in response to the trawling techniques employed by police authorities in the north-west.
	I was also disappointed to note what was said in paragraph 13 of the Government reply:
	"The Government recognises that this is an area where solid facts can be difficult to identify, however we feel that the weight given by the Committee to the views of those who believe in the existence of miscarriages of justice, including those who claim to be the victims themselves of such cases, is disproportionate. The consideration for the views of abuse survivors, such as those represented in the submission to the Committee from Fire In Ice, and whom we can reasonably assume lack motive to fabricate their claims, point towards a wholly different view of these issues. The Government feels that the consideration of this issue must be balanced and must rely as far as possible on established facts."
	That is a crucial paragraph. I say immediately that I wholly endorse the Government's view that consideration of the issue must be balanced and rely on established facts. So far as I am aware, nobody who gave evidence to the Committee, which was critical of police trawling, ever suggested for a moment that sexual abuse in care homes was not a real and serious problem. Nor did the committee itself make such a suggestion at any point in its report. On the contrary, the report begins by stressing that
	"child abuse is one of the most dreadful crimes and the suffering of victims, even years after the offence has taken place, is difficult to imagine".
	Of course the views of genuine victims should be considered, but in drawing attention to the submission made by the organisation, Fire in Ice, the Government are, I submit, treading on very dangerous ground indeed.
	May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Fire in Ice made a written submission to the Committee, in which it described itself as
	"a Merseyside based self-help project run by and for men who have experienced child abuse, especially those who suffered in childcare institutions"?
	The project co-ordinator of Fire in Ice, Matthew Byrne, also gave oral evidence to the Committee. I am certainly not suggesting for one moment that those who run Fire in Ice—and Matthew Byrne, in particular—are anything other than sincere in describing their organisation in those terms. They clearly believe that they are representing those who have genuinely been abused while in care. No doubt in some cases they are quite correct in this belief, but if the Government really believe what they profess—that debate about these matters
	"must rely as far as possible on established facts"—
	I must point out that the evidence submitted by the members of Fire in Ice does not pass the test that the Government have, quite rightly, set for themselves.
	The claims made by, or on behalf of, a series of members referred to in Fire in Ice's written submission are not "established facts". They are allegations. They are, furthermore, allegations of sexual abuse against care workers made by individuals who are identified only by numbers and who are referred to as "Survivor 1", "Survivor 2" and so forth. Even the men against whom the allegations are made are not identified by name. For that reason, the claims made in the written evidence submitted by Fire in Ice are difficult or impossible to verify.
	The Government have said in their reply that they can "reasonably assume" that the members of Fire in Ice "lack motive" to fabricate allegations, but I find it very odd indeed that, in the very same breath as calling for reliance on "established facts", the Government should base one of their own arguments on something that, by their own account, is nothing more than an assumption. The Government claim that the assumption is reasonable, but we seem to encounter here, in the Government's own reply, the very habit of mind that is so dangerous in these investigations. Assuming that horrific allegations of sexual abuse must be true when there is no evidence at all to support them is not, in fact, a reasonable position at all. Nor is it a balanced view. To me, it is a highly dangerous view.
	If the Government had taken the trouble to investigate a little further what sort of organisation Fire in Ice actually is, and what sort of literature it recommends to its members, the need for caution would have—or at least should have—rapidly become apparent. The research involved is not difficult and the initial stages could have been completed in a matter of minutes. Fire in Ice does not make a secret of its underlying philosophy, or the guiding lights by which it steers. Indeed, it advertises them on websites. Its website includes a section on useful literature, in which it recommends several books. One of those books is "The Courage to Heal" by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis. This book was originally written for women and is well known. It is sometimes described as the handbook, or even the bible, of the recovered memory movement. Many responsible psychiatrists and therapists regard it as one of the most dangerous self-help books ever written. Its authors encourage the readers to search their memories for dark and shameful episodes of sexual abuse, which, they are told, may have been completely hidden by repression. Bass and Davis write:
	"If you think you were abused, and your life shows the symptoms, then you were."
	With the help of "The Courage to Heal", which has now sold millions of copies in north America alone, many hundreds of thousands of women have recovered what they describe as memories of being raped or sexually abused repeatedly for long periods during their childhood.
	Reputable psychologists and psychiatrists in Britain, America and elsewhere have, again and again, reached the conclusion that in most, if not all, cases, those recovered memories are false. Others have opposed this view. This is not the time and place to engage in that particular debate, but it is the time and the place to draw attention to the fact that such a debate has been raging now for some 20 years and that the existence of false memories has been proved beyond all doubt. It is the time and place to suggest to the Government that some caution is required before they leap to the conclusion that an organisation that clearly believes in the phenomenon of recovered memory should be treated as a trusted and reliable source.

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I have been generous so far and I am afraid that I cannot give way now. I would simply add here the observation that Fire in Ice recommends not only "The Courage to Heal", but its male equivalent, "Victims No Longer" by Mike Lew. So far as Fire in Ice is concerned, the issue of recovered memory is one warning bell whose insistent tolling the Government should have heard but did not.
	There is a second warning bell in the evidence actually submitted to the Committee by Fire in Ice, which the Government has either not heard or not attended to. In its written submission, Fire in Ice described a man they called "Survivor 8" in the following terms:
	"Survivor 8 is a 28-year-old man who was abused by his football coach in the 1980s. Operation Care found his name by trawling . . . While he was in prison he was asked to give evidence against his abuser, he agreed but when the other inmates found out that the accused man was a famous local player/coach they bullied him until he withdrew the allegation."
	I hope that I do not need to labour the point that the allegation that is made in that evidence is of the gravest possible kind. It is an allegation which has never been tested and which remains utterly unsubstantiated. It is an allegation made by an anonymous accuser, but it is made against a former care worker who, in this case at least, appears to be all too identifiable. So far as I am aware, the only famous footballer and coach investigated by Operation Care was David Jones, formerly the manager of Southampton and now, of course, the manager of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
	Hon. Members will perhaps recall that the trial of David Jones, surrounded as it was by intense media interest, collapsed almost before it had begun in December 2000. It is perhaps worth repeating the words that were spoken by Judge David Clarke to Mr. Jones at the time of his acquittal:
	"David Jones, not guilty verdicts have been entered in respect of all charges against you. I would just like to say this means you leave this court as you entered it—an innocent man."
	One might have expected that the Government, in their reply to the Home Affairs Committee, would have shown respect and immense sensitivity to a man in the position of David Jones. Instead they have implicitly and—it would appear—unthinkingly endorsed the veracity of a wholly unsubstantiated allegation of sexual abuse that appears to refer to him. More importantly still, without the benefit of any investigation or any evidence, the Government have endorsed the credibility of the organisation that brings forward that allegation. In doing so, I submit that the Government have made a very serious error of judgment.
	In case those two warning bells are not loud enough to indicate to hon. Members how dangerous a course the Government are now steering, I want to sound a third warning bell about the organisation in which the Government have chosen to repose their trust. Before I do so, I will say once again that I do not seek for one moment to question the sincerity of those who run Fire in Ice. I do not doubt that those who lead that organisation generally believe in the truthfulness of the allegations that they bring forward. The problem is simply that some of those involved with the organisation have made allegations that cannot be true.
	I rely on a little research of the kind that could easily have been conducted by the Home Office before the Government finalised their reply. The starting point of the research is the recognition that Fire in Ice is not a charity. It is, in fact, a limited company. As such, it has a number of directors whose names, addresses and dates of birth are, of necessity, lodged with Companies House. One of the directors of Fire in Ice is a man whose name is given as David Harold Walsh, and whose date of birth is given as 11 August 1967. I have available for the Minister a statement given to the police in 1994 by David Harold Walsh.
	In November 1994, the police were investigating possible abuse at a home called Greystone Heath in Cheshire where David Walsh had been in residence some twelve years previously. One of their suspects was Dennis Grain, who was in fact an abuser and would eventually plead guilty to a number of counts of sexual abuse. When the police, who were engaged in a trawling operation and were seeking more allegations of abuse, came to see David Walsh, they were equipped with a photograph album. That album contained photographs of a number of former members of staff. From it, Walsh picked out a photograph of Dennis Grain. He went on to make an allegation of indecent assault against Grain, saying that this "big man"—Grain weighed, I believe, some 15 stone—had pinned him to the wall one day and started to play with his penis. That had happened, Walsh said, on two further occasions.
	A week later, David Walsh made another statement to the police. He said that he had been thinking about what had happened and wished to say that, although his first statement was true, there were some details he had left out because they were embarrassing. He now wished to add those details. He went on to make an allegation of attempted buggery and also alleged that Grain had attempted to force him to engage in oral sex.
	A month later, however, the Cheshire police visited Walsh again. By this time it would appear that they had consulted their records. What those clearly showed was that David Walsh had first entered Greystone Heath on 11 February 1982. Dennis Grain, however, had left on 31 May 1980, almost two years before Walsh had arrived. Far from being abused by Grain, Walsh had never even met him.
	David Walsh now made a third statement, saying that he had been upset and confused when he had made his first statement. He later went on to make a fourth statement in which he maintained that the abuse he had described had indeed happened, even though he had been mistaken about Grain. The person he had described in his first statement as "a big man", whose "heavy body" he had referred to in his second statement and who was "well built" according to his third statement, was now described, in his fourth and final statement, as having been of "medium to slim build".
	Let me say immediately that I do not know whether David Walsh was, when he first made his allegation against Dennis Grain, deliberately and consciously inventing an allegation that he knew to be false. What I do know, and what the Cheshire police eventually discovered, was that David Walsh made allegations that were in fact false. He may now believe sincerely that he was sexually abused at Greystone Heath by some person unknown. Once again, I stress that it is not the sincerity of the members—or, in this case, one of the directors—of Fire in Ice that I am seeking to question. It is their accuracy and reliability.
	I respectfully suggest that if the Government, before compiling and publishing their reply to the Home Affairs Committee report, had conducted a little elementary research, they would not have ended up in the very difficult position they are now in.

Gwyn Prosser: I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done. She has become a veritable expert in this difficult subject. The evidence that she has given this afternoon has driven a coach and horses through nearly all the rebuttals and refusals that the Government have provided to the Committee. Does she agree that when one compares the weight of evidence that the Home Affairs Committee received, and the additional evidence that she has brought to us this afternoon, with the lukewarm, thin and unsubstantiated rebuttals of the Government, the Home Office appears complacent in saying that everything is okay on this issue?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Yes, I am afraid that I have come to that conclusion.
	I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. However, I am desperately concerned that the work and views of the Home Affairs Committee have been rejected more or less completely by the Home Office. At the very least, I should have expected all the evidence, from both complainants and those accused, to have been tape-recorded. We must assume that all the people making the accusations have been abused. Many of them are interviewed in prison. In many cases they are interviewed repeatedly—up to 18 times—in order to get a statement that passes muster with the Crown Prosecution Service. That is totally unacceptable.
	I cannot imagine anything worse, or more guaranteed to produce severe and adverse responses to episodes, than repeated interviewing. People who are believed to have been sexually abused must be treated like rape victims. Those who are in prison must not be treated like prisoners. We must afford them the respect that we have worked hard to gain for rape victims. The people involved must be taken out of the prison context and brought to rape suites, where their testimony can be recorded. They must be adequately supported as they come to terms with the trauma that may become evident after they have made their declarations.

Meg Munn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: No, I must continue.
	At the very least, I would have hoped that the Home Office would recognise that many of the people involved are vulnerable, and that for all sorts of reasons they may well respond to what the police want them to say. More importantly, however, the Home Office should recognise that those people may genuinely have suffered the most appalling abuse. As such, they should be afforded the protection that is afforded to others.
	The Home Office has failed to do that. It has failed to protect the accused, and it is guilty of failing to protect victims. Prisoners who are locked in prison are the most vulnerable of victims. I object to the Home Office's response. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter. More than any other cases, cases of sexual abuse must be conducted and reviewed under a regime of tape recording. That is vital for everyone involved.
	The allegations that I have made today require substantial proof that they are true. I want to be able to tell the House that I know what went on because tape-recorded evidence exists to prove it. That is what people who are accused of these acts want, and I am sure that that is what most victims want.

Edward Garnier: Because of the lack of time, I will not engage in a trawl. However, I will engage in a brief bit of dip sampling.
	Before I do so, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her speech. I am sorry that she did not have more time to tell us a little more about her concerns, as I know that she has pursued the matter with great passion and dedication. She has done so with no expectation or hope of political reward. It is unusual for a modern Member of Parliament to take up an issue that will do her precisely no good at all, although the hon. Lady's work has enhanced her reputation in the House, and outside it.
	I should also like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who, as the former Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, persuaded that Committee to take up the inquiry last year. He is a doughty fighter on behalf of people who have suffered miscarriages of justice. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was able to present, in a thoroughly dispassionate and reasonable way, the conclusions of the Committee of which he is the acting Chairman.

David Winnick: I am the temporary Chairman.

Edward Garnier: The modern parlance used by the Prime Minister is "during the transitional period".
	I promised to be brief and to sample dip, so I shall make only a few comments. First, like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I want to begin by looking at paragraph 10 of the Government's response to the report. I do not blame the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who is new to her post and was not responsible for the political oversight of the report, but paragraph 10 states:
	"The Committee's conclusions would appear partly to have arisen from a combination of assumptions",
	and then it goes on to list them. The paragraph begins by stating that the Government
	"respects the views of the Committee, but does not share its belief in the existence of large numbers of miscarriages of justice."
	That is a regrettable way to introduce a report. It tells us that the Government are wavering between being somewhat lofty and complacent, and being simply dismissive of the Committee's work.
	I do not want to be entirely controversial all of the time. For example, I agree with the Government's response to recommendation 13, which appears in paragraph 62. The Government state that they see no reason to interfere with the ability of the CPS to prosecute ancient cases if the evidence exists. I see no need to get special permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General to pursue ancient cases, if the evidence is there.
	However, I take issue with paragraph 66, which responds to recommendation 15 in connection with the anonymity of people charged with allegations of the sexual abuse of children. There are perfectly respectable arguments both ways when it comes to the anonymising or otherwise of defendants in such cases, but there is no justice to be found in the Government's answer that they
	"will continue to listen to the arguments of those who feel strongly on the matter."
	That means nothing. A Government who have got their head around the matter properly ought to make their meaning rather clearer.

Mark Francois: On a directly related matter, I had a good friend who was a teacher. He suffered allegations similar to those being discussed today. It took two years for the matter to go to the Crown Court, where the jury threw the case out in less than 30 minutes. However, my friend's life was ruined for two years. He suffered a great deal of harassment by the local press, and he was so traumatised that he was unable to return to the classroom afterwards. We lost a very good teacher as a result. Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that a case can be made for anonymity in some of these cases, so that we do not lose good public servants?

Edward Garnier: Yes, I think that there is a case for anonymity, but the Government's response does not deal with the matter adequately. Indeed, I am taking part in this debate, and I am following the hon. Member for Crosby in dealing with the issue, because I, too, had a constituency case similar to that described by my hon. Friend. In that case, a man and his female partner—they live together as husband and wife, although I do not think that they are married—were both accused of vile and disgusting acts by people who were once, years before, in their charge. They were the victims, if I may say so, of a trawl.
	Despite what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) says, the couple in the case that I have described were not victims of the same type as people involved in the children's homes cases, but they were victims none the less. Perhaps I shall have occasion to speak up for people who suffered genuine sexual abuse in children's homes, but that is not what I am talking about today. Today, I am talking about the other side of the coin—wholly innocent people who are the victims of police trawling. Such people are subjected to appalling social and employment consequences, as happened in the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois).
	The two people in my constituency were never brought to court, because the police withdrew the case about 18 months to two years after the couple were originally suspended from work, brought in for interview and bunged into a police cell. Their lives are now effectively ruined. I shall not dwell on their case, because I dealt with it in the Westminster Hall Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Crosby.

Hilton Dawson: I accept all that the hon. and learned Gentleman says about miscarriages of justice: no one wants them to happen. None the less, are there not dangers in trying to protect the rights of people who are accused of child abuse in that one might make it more difficult for victims to come forward and tell what they know about that most heinous of crimes?

Edward Garnier: I am not sure that we are in an either/or set of circumstances. We need to protect the rights of those who are abused and those accused of abusing. Even those who are guilty of abusing children, even if they have been convicted of heinous crimes, have rights. There is no argument between us on that. Miscarriages of justice occur not only in cases to do with the sexual abuse of children in homes. When an innocent man is convicted, the miscarriage is just as great as it is when a guilty man is acquitted, but the consequences for the individual may be hugely different.
	I want to touch on one or two recommendations made by the Committee and responded to by the Government. I can broadly agree with what the Government say in response to recommendations 1 and 2 on page 7 of the report. However, we must ensure that the police exercise greater care and forethought before they set upon a collection of individuals whom they believe—I do not think that the police go into these matters dishonestly—may have committed the most appalling crimes against children, either recently or, more dangerously, some little while ago.
	The problem that the police have faced, certainly in my county of Leicestershire, is that they are terribly under-resourced. On the constituency matter to which I referred a moment ago, one police superintendent, with only a sergeant and a detective constable to help him, had to trawl—I use the word deliberately—through documents that had been distributed between Leicester city social services and Leicestershire county council social services following the fairly recent split in the local government set-up. He had no assistance from either social services department in locating documents. One can imagine the difficulty that that small team of police officers had. Leicestershire constabulary was under pressure to achieve a result, not least because Leicestershire had suffered the terrible trauma of the Beck case, which will be well known to all who have followed social services policy over the past 15 years.
	I am not for one moment suggesting that the superintendent, whom I have met and for whom I have huge respect, deliberately set out to manufacture or to cut corners in order to provide evidence that would get his group of accused people to trial and conviction. That simply is not how he was thinking. He was, however, under huge pressure to achieve something, and as a consequence of the absence of manpower and resources—and assistance from civilian authorities that ought to have helped him better—a wholly unsatisfactory inquiry was put in train, which damaged a huge number of people's lives. Those lives are still being damaged.

Meg Munn: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are reasons other than those of the police for finding out whether there may have been more victims of an alleged abuser? In my experience of being involved in investigations of the type referred to, my social services department felt that it had a duty to former residents to check whether they had suffered abuse, not just in the interests of criminal prosecution but because those people would be entitled to compensation, help and support.

Edward Garnier: As was the case with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I do not disagree for one moment with what the hon. Lady has said. There is no dispute between us. What the police must be careful about, however, is that when they interview alleged victims, they are aware that they are talking to damaged people. The mere fact that those people have been in children's homes leads me to believe that they must feel rejected. They have been abandoned by their parents. They may not even know their father. They have been abandoned from all the normal family circumstances and environments that many of us take for granted. They have, as it were, been dumped in public sector oubliettes. I am exaggerating, and I do so in order to truncate the range of words I want to use.
	Imagine what it would be like to be a child of 11, 12, 13 or 14 in a children's home. There is not much going for that child, in spite of the fact that those who run the homes do their best to provide the nearest thing to normal family life. Such children are ripe, it may be said, to the temptations and difficulties of the criminal world. Often, I am afraid to say, children from residential homes go into crime. Many of those who appear in front of me as adults when I sit as a Crown court recorder have been brought up in children's homes. I want to make it clear that I am not criticising those who run children's homes, but that is a fact of life.
	When those people go to prison or to young offenders' institutions, they are desperate for approval, love and some form of attention. The next source of attention may well be a policeman coming in to ask for a statement about the terrible things that happened to them in the children's home 10 years ago. There is a danger that auto-suggestive people will give statements that they think are required of them, rather than the unvarnished truth. That is another fact of life, and it leads me to exercise some caution about the trawling system. The Select Committee was entirely right to draw that to our attention, and to that of the Government. I do not care whether the Committee found it convenient or otherwise to use the word "trawling"; it happens accurately to describe the exercise that the police so often, for reasons good or bad, undertake.
	During last year's Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, I urged the then Minister to look carefully and vigorously into videoing interviews. "Resources, resources, resources" is always the cry, although the Minister, at least on that occasion, did not say that the time was not right. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been in place for nearly 20 years, and it is pretty well standard practice for interviews of defendants to be taped. It cannot be beyond the wit of man or Government to push that forward with rather greater vigour.
	I shall pause now so that others may speak. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the Committee and to what is said in this debate. I urge them not to brush the matter under the carpet as though it were some inconvenient and unfashionable item while they get on with destroying the constitution.

Marsha Singh: In the couple of remaining minutes I should like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), without whose work the report might not have been possible, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who so admirably stepped into the breach.
	This is one of the most difficult reports that I have been involved in because of the judgment that we had to make between the interests of children and the interests of the accused. No one on the Committee was left in any doubt that miscarriages of justice took place precisely because of the way in which investigations were carried out. It seemed that following an allegation the police were not seeking to substantiate it or disprove it, but were looking for another allegation to confirm that something had happened. That is where the miscarriages of justice occurred. The Government should carefully consider our recommendations, which would stop the trawling and would safeguard the rights of victims, those making the allegations and the accused.
	Finally, will the Government look again at anonymity, because lives, families, jobs, careers and reputations are being destroyed on the basis of false allegations? No one deserves that.

Dominic Grieve: This has been a most useful debate. I well recollect the debate that we had last year in Westminster Hall, in which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) participated and which raised many of the same issues. It is greatly to her credit that she has pursued this extremely unpopular topic with such determination. I found it illuminating to read the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and see the extent to which it took into account the points that she has been raising over and over again—and indeed attracting a lot of opprobrium for doing so—and came up with conclusions that were often similar to those that she had earlier been reporting as subjects of anxiety.
	Clearly, there is an enormous problem in relation to such cases, first, because there is immense public interest in pursuing and punishing those who perpetrate child abuse, especially in view of the fact that the children have been in the care, often, of care homes and local authorities. It is an important public policy issue. It is also the case, however, that such cases highlight the problem one experiences when trying to ensure justice for victims. The case may be decades old and the evidence, whether documentary or recollections, may have completely disappeared.
	In recent years, I have noticed the view increasingly being taken by those in authority—whether the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or to some extent the Government have been driving the process—that the evidential difficulties that may exist should not be a deterrent to bringing proceedings in the first place, when an investigation is carried out. That then places a great burden on those who are carrying out such inquiries to be alive to the problems that are likely to occur and can lead to the miscarriages of justice and anxieties expressed by the hon. Lady and the Select Committee. I shall return to that theme in my closing remarks, because it has long-term problems for us.
	The Government's response to the report is disappointing. The disappointment springs not from the answers to particular recommendations, but from the general tone. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) intervened earlier and raised a pertinent point, which is that in their reply the Government allege in paragraph 10—they are putting words into the Committee's mouth—that
	"'False allegations' are assumed to have occurred in a whole range of circumstances, from acquittals and cases that do not proceed to occasions when their existence is claimed by either those who claim to have made them or their associates. Rarely is there clear substantiation that these allegations have indeed been deceptions."
	That statement was an extraordinary way to put the issue. The point should be whether we are satisfied that there is clear substantiation that the allegations are true. The Government give the impression that they see the problem only in terms of its being a reversal of the burden of proof, and that as long as there is no substantiation that the allegations were deceptions, there is nothing for us to worry about. However, that is not the foundation of the principle of justice in this country.

Angela Watkinson: In cases of past child abuse, is it ever possible to reach a decision that is beyond reasonable doubt?

Dominic Grieve: I am sure that there could be circumstances in which that was possible. Our established rules and principles of admissibility of evidence and our conduct of trials ought, in my experience, to be sufficiently robust to ensure that justice can be done, provided that it is accompanied by high standards in the investigative processes carried out by the police, to ensure that they do not unwittingly, or when carried away by their understandable desire to see justice done, succeed in tainting the evidence by their investigative methods.
	Trawling is the classic case where such a problem may emerge.

David Winnick: As regards the intervention of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there can be justified convictions in such historical cases. However, as he knows, we recommended that, where the alleged offence was committed more than 10 years before the allegation was made, proceedings should continue only with the court's permission. We thought that a necessary and useful safeguard.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. My response on that specific recommendation is that, oddly enough, I slightly support the Government's position. If someone makes an allegation that is more than 10 years after the event, I would expect that the person acting for the defendant, faced with the difficulties of obtaining evidence, would automatically make an abuse of process application to the court. I should be staggered if that were not so. I should certainly do that if I were representing such a person. If there was evidence that abuse of process would arise because of those difficulties, I should expect the court to put it out.
	In fact, the hon. Gentleman and the Committee are suggesting that that procedure should be institutionalised. The procedure is not necessarily wrong, but on that issue, I question whether it would be necessary at all, as it would be a bizarre advocate who did not initiate it in any event.

Edward Garnier: May I reinforce my hon. Friend's point? Too often, the House gives the court powers that it has already. He has just given us an example of that.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
	I do not like the tone of the Government's response on trawling. The business of "dip sampling" is just a euphemism. There is a legitimate reason for trawling. If a serious allegation is made by someone who appears to suggest that they were constantly abused in a care home and that they can remember other people who were also victims, nothing could be more legitimate than for the police to interview the other people who might have been victims and to make general inquiries, as they would in any investigation, of other children who had been in the care home about their experiences.
	However, when the investigation is carried out in the way described in paragraph 36 of the report, when South Wales police interviewed a young epileptic about his experiences in a home, the matter is a scandalous disgrace. Evidence obtained in such circumstances would be valueless for an objective prosecution and would be dangerous if misused, and not exposed, during any trial that took place.
	I have to tell the Minister that I think that trawling is the proper expression, and I am concerned that proper systems should be in place to ensure that the inquiry is properly conducted. If anything needs to be done in this area, that is it—I shall come to one or two others, but that is the first priority. I am pleased to note that, although the Government minimise all those problems, they seem to accept that the system could be improved. There has been a classic Government response to the paper. They say, "Yes, we could improve things, but there is really nothing to worry about." I happen to disagree; there is a lot to worry about and a lot needs improvement.
	I wish to say briefly that I agree with the Government that 79 per cent. of cases were rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service. I have to tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that that shows that the CPS is carrying out proper scrutiny, but that is not to say that no miscarriage of justice will occur. However, I am reassured by the fact that the number of rejected cases is so much higher than ordinarily, because that is a reflection of the problematic nature of bringing such prosecutions.

Hilton Dawson: I seek the hon. Gentleman's advice. The CPS has turned down a lot of applications to go to trial. Presumably, in such cases, someone may well have been accused, but the CPS is simply considering whether the case would stand up in court.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a very telling intervention that goes to the nub of the problem, and in fairness, given the time available, I cannot get away from that.
	People often say, "We want the truth to come out in court. We must make a desperate inquiry to find the truth." However, we sometimes have to accept that we will never find the truth. One of this country's principles of criminal justice is not that we will find the truth at the end of the process, but that we will convict people when the courts can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed an offence, so it is explicit and implicit that people will escape prosecution or be acquitted even though they have committed an offence, because the high standard that we set ourselves cannot be met. I approve of that principle, and any right-thinking person applying his or her mind to the dangers of miscarriages of justice must also approve of it. Again, I will return to that.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: I cannot give way—I must get finished.
	I want to cover two other specific matters before I return to the general. On extending anonymity to the accused, I accept that such cases cannot be separated from ordinary rape cases, but we return to the nub issue that, in the past, Parliament has considered it right to grant anonymity to the accused in certain sex offences. I am bound to say that that issue requires us to give it very careful consideration, because wrecking the lives of people who are accused and subsequently acquitted—which we are perpetrating in such cases—ought to give Parliament grave cause for concern. If things can be done in a way that does not prevent the proper administration of justice, there are powerful reasons to consider granting anonymity, not just in such cases, but in other similar ones.
	The other thing is the working relationship between personal injury solicitors and the police. I entirely endorse the point that, with no win, no fee agreements—we warned about this when they were introduced—and given the changes in the way in which funding is taking place for cases of negligence against, for example, local authorities where someone has been abused in care, there must be a risk of solicitors having an interest in the conclusion of the criminal proceedings that, unfortunately, influences their professional judgments. When, on top of that, police officers are full of zeal to see "justice" being done, there is a risk at that stage that people stop seeing the wood for the trees and start taking decisions that are contrary to the interests of justice.
	In conclusion—I am mindful that the Minister and the hon. Member for Walsall, North will want to respond—I return to a much more general point that worries me enormously. The report includes a reference to similar fact evidence and to what constitutes good evidence in securing a person's conviction. Indeed, that is highly pertinent, because the Criminal Justice Bill, to which the report refers, once again shifts the goalposts to facilitate the conviction of accused people. That is a deliberate policy adopted by the Government in the belief that courts are acquitting too many people who are guilty of offences. The problem is that while it is undoubtedly the case that these shifts in similar fact evidence, and the admissibility of previous convictions under the Criminal Justice Bill, will almost certainly see more guilty people being convicted, it is also absolutely certain that there will be more miscarriages of justice and innocent people will be wrongly convicted. Human justice is fallible, and such shifts cannot be carried out without the attendant consequences.
	Picking up on my reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), Parliament faces a great problem: the public understandably want criminals convicted, which is very important, and people who commit horrible offences such as child abuse come in for great public opprobrium, which is understandable. There is a great momentum to want to see punishment meted out and justice done. We must always have it in mind, however, that miscarriages of justice happen, have happened, and, I am afraid, will continue to happen. We should be careful about bending traditional rules that have served us well in this country to achieve a result when the side effects may be as, if not more, reprehensible in terms of bringing the system of justice into disrepute. With that thought—

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: I apologise, but I cannot take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as I want to hear the Minister. I look forward to her response on this extremely difficult subject.

Hazel Blears: First, I want to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). As various Members have said, it was a brave decision to pursue this inquiry in the Home Affairs Committee, and today's debate has been ably presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), acting as transitional Chairman of that Committee.
	I want to deal with as many of the specific matters raised by hon. Members as possible. The overwhelming flavour of all the contributions, however, has been to show how difficult it is to get the balance right in this area. It involves a whole range of conflicting and competing interests of victims, witnesses and prosecutors, as well as some of the public policy issues raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) at the end of his contribution. This is one area in which the jigsaw of different interests has thrown up some difficult issues of judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) said that this was one of the most difficult matters with which he had had to deal because it was all about judgment.
	It is entirely right that this difficult area of criminal investigation should be subject to intensive scrutiny by the public, the media and the Committee. We do not want to shy away from it. These cases represent some of the most challenging investigations for police forces, as they involve terrible crimes against vulnerable children, and the Committee's report was balanced in terms of the interests of various parties. We should not forget, however, that some of these children have suffered enormous distress and damage to their lives as a result of these events.
	The added element of uncertainty and complexity created by the passage of an often considerable period of time makes the job of investigation harder. That is why it is even more important that the whole chain of evidence gathering has integrity and is as robust and rigorous as possible. In a reciprocal way, the longer ago that such events took place, the more rigorous the investigation process must be. I entirely acknowledge that the situation adds to difficulties faced by defendants or people under investigation, and we heard several passionate and committed contributions about the position of defendants. We must be clear about safeguards all round to ensure that justice is denied neither to complainants nor those who are investigated. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North that justice must be done.

Bob Russell: The hon. Lady says that justice must be done, so even if the Home Office is right that there is no evidence that many miscarriages of justice have occurred, will she accept that at least some miscarriages of justice have occurred? Does she acknowledge that a number of innocent men are in jail for serious crimes that they did not commit?

Hazel Blears: Any single miscarriage of justice is an absolute tragedy for the people involved, and I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). We are not saying that we can sweep aside miscarriages of justice just because they are few in number. Every single miscarriage of justice in this country is a tragedy for the person involved, his or her family and, indeed, the justice system, because miscarriages of justice reflect badly on it. Individual cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and individual decisions will be made on such cases after consideration of new evidence and of how the cases were dealt with in court.

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Hazel Blears: I shall, but I want to get on to deal with specific matters that hon. Members raised.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on her new position. I commend the excellent and balanced Government response to a good report by the Select Committee. Will she attend to the needs of victims who will not have their cases heard in court for a variety of reasons? Will she do further work with victims' organisations to address their expressed need for an apology, a recording system and the development of compensation schemes and victim support?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has an excellent personal record of commitment to the issue and extensive personal experience, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). They will know that one of the main thrusts behind our changes to the criminal justice system is the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are at the heart of the system and that it serves the needs of such people better in the future. I am happy to consider all the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
	I turn to the use of dip sampling or trawling—various terms were used—in investigations. The fishing analogies seem to be increasing because we have heard about fishing expeditions and now trawling. I wait with interest to hear what kind of term will be used next, although I shall not make a huge issue of terminology. I am pleased that the Select Committee acknowledges that there is a need to conduct wide-ranging investigations. It does not want dip sampling to be prohibited but wants robust safeguards to be built in the process.
	Hon. Members will know that the "Senior Investigating Officers Handbook for the Investigation of Historic Institutional Child Abuse" was published in November 2001. It is a lengthy document that provides excellent examples of good practice and the way in which investigations should be managed. Section 5 outlines how initial contact with possible victims should be established. It suggests the use of a letter drop that does not name individuals and tries to establish open contact that would not be prejudicial to later proceedings. The handbook contains good work.
	I am happy to say today that further discussions should be held with the Association of Chief Police Officers to determine whether we can strengthen safeguards for such investigations to ensure absolutely that witnesses are not led and that allegations are not encouraged inappropriately.

Janet Dean: rose—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Hazel Blears: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister reassure us on a further point? The Government's response to the report refers to the fact that recent Court of Appeal judgments have resulted in convictions being set aside, but paragraph 21 says:
	"Clearly, the circumstances of these cases do not imply that other convictions are unsafe"—
	I appreciate that. If those cases that have been set aside arise out of trawling or dip sampling, will the Government acknowledge that that is cause for concern because there will be similarities between those cases and the practices that continue?

Hazel Blears: I assured the hon. Gentleman that we would look into that in more detail to see what can be strengthened. I do not want to speculate on what those cases might or might not tell us about any part of the chain of investigation.

Janet Dean: Paragraph 33 of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations is on audio and visual recording of witness statements. It says:
	"if it were explained to a witness that the recording may prevent cross-examination to the effect that, for example, the officer led the witness, they may themselves see the advantage in this approach."
	Will my hon. Friend look into that and consider further the Committee's recommendations on recording interviews at the initial stages? In itself, that could safeguard the evidence and protect witnesses.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was about to deal with that because it was raised by virtually every hon. Member. I am happy to undertake to reconsider the issue because such cases are sensitive and often have different characteristics. We have a well established system of recording interviews on video. That is part of our general criminal law approach. As my hon. Friend said, there may be good reasons why a recording would be in the interests of the person giving evidence. It might, perhaps, prevent them from being subject to further allegations about the veracity of their statement. There is always the issue of resources, however.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made an important point on access to records. He will know that there was a minimal system of record keeping prior to the Children Act 1989. Fewer requirements were placed on people who ran care establishments to provide individual reports and records. The child abuse investigations inter-agency guidance has a section on the need to have access to records. Appendix E sets out a robust framework for record keeping as a result of the 1989 Act. It provides that records must be kept for 75 years after the birth of a child or for 15 years if a child dies before the age of 18. There are also strict legal requirements in the various sets of regulations passed after the 1989 Act to ensure that records are kept in future. In relation to past events, the records will sometimes be less than perfect and inadequate, but future record keeping has to be robust.
	Compensation is important. The guidance has a section on that. It provides that agencies have to establish a policy on how they are going to
	"deal with questions of potential financial compensation for victims, to clarify that members of the investigative team should not instigate any discussion of the issue and should avoid discussing it if it is raised by any victims or witnesses in the course of the investigation."
	In addition, interviewing officers, who are on the front line, should be given good practical guidance on how to maintain that separation. It is important to emphasise that in the process. Another section in the guidance stresses the need to ensure that officers are not open to criticism for offering the prospect of compensation as a means of securing co-operation in an investigation. We are alive to the dangers, real or imputed, of how compensation could be used or construed. Again, the guidance is pretty robust on that.
	The senior investigating officers handbook, together with the guidance, give us a robust framework. I would not want to belittle the report's recommendations in any way. We agree with the Committee on a number of significant things, and we want to consider strengthening parts of the guidance and putting in place safeguards for everyone in the system. We are certainly not, as was suggested, complacent, lofty or dismissive of the report.
	A general point was made about the use in the criminal justice system of "similar fact" evidence. It would be a retrograde step to go back to having to use striking similar evidence. It is right that these matters are put before the court and the jury has the opportunity to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion on that basis. It is therefore important that that information should be made available, and is not eliminated before the allegations can be ventilated in court. The Crown Prosecution Service has a crucial role to play in that process by sifting information. It already has two tests—whether or not a prosecution is likely to succeed, and whether or not it is in the public interest. Those well-established tests serve our criminal justice system extremely well indeed, and help us to ensure that justice is done.
	There are a range of other recommendations in the report, some of which we are happy to accept, although there are others with which we disagree. However, I should like to reassure every hon. Member who has participated in our debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who has done an immense amount of work and demonstrated commitment, tenacity and determination, that I take these matters extremely seriously. Having only assumed my post in the past few days, I will take the opportunity to look further and in depth at the recommendations to see whether we can make further progress. We must remember that we have a responsibility to ensure that justice is done for the defendants and, crucially, for the victims, who have suffered the effects of abuse, perhaps for decades, and may have had a blighted existence. That is the extremely serious matter that we are considering today.

David Winnick: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words.
	I regret that, because of limited time, it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) or the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to speak. They were both understandably anxious to do so, having played an active role in Committee, and their contributions would have been useful. I regret that my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) were not able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Had they done so, perhaps they would have expressed a different point of view. It is unfortunate that, given the lack of time, our debate is not quite as balanced as it might have been. However, it has been a good debate on a controversial subject, which it is only right and proper to discuss on the Floor of the House. That has been done in the absence of political controversy—it is rather surprising that I should say that, is it not?
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a valid point about the recording of interviews, which we emphasise in our report and which was acknowledged, I am pleased to say, by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). In one or two instances, he more or less agreed with the Government's written response, but he also showed a generous attitude to the Select Committee report.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her new appointment. I hope that I will not be misunderstood if I point out that her response was rather different from the Home Office's disappointing written response to our report and recommendations. I listened with great care when she said that there will be further discussions with police officers. I am pleased about that, and with her comments about compensation. I know that she made no promises of any kind, but she showed willingness to look at our recommendations. I would be grateful if she did so because, in her new position, she would not necessarily be confined to the Home Office response, which caused disappointment among members of the Select Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made a passionate speech. Indeed, as I told her, I cannot recall another occasion on which I heard such a passionate speech. She feels strongly about the subject—no one who listened to her today could doubt that. She has taken up a cause that would have been considered unpopular in the past, if not now, and she has done that with the utmost integrity. Not everyone would agree with her campaign, but she has campaigned consistently, regardless of popularity. I am pleased that there are hon. Members in all parties who are willing to accept such a role. My hon. Friend deserves full credit for her actions, even from those of us who cannot agree with all her views on the important subject.
	I am pleased that the debate has taken place. Our report took some time to compile and we believe that the Government should seriously consider most of our recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do precisely that.
	Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) and Order [29 October 2002], until 6 pm.

Waste Management
	 — 
	DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

[Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on The Future of Waste Management, HC 385-I, and Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2002–03, on Waste—An Audit, HC 99-I; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Annual Report for 2003, Cm 5919.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That further resources, not exceeding £1,386,358,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £1,456,729,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.—[Joan Ryan.]

Paddy Tipping: I begin by mentioning absent friends. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is preparing for an important and joyous occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is now—unfortunately—spending a little more time with his family. He would have been a persuasive respondent to the debate. In the past six years, he has been a strong advocate not only on waste issues but on general environment matters. Those who have seen him in the Chamber in the past couple of days know that he will not neglect those causes.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will reply to the debate. He has received a long awaited and well deserved promotion. Given his history, I know that he will take a keen political interest in waste.

James Gray: I offer hon. Members apologies for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, who is unable to be present today.

Paddy Tipping: I am sure that hon. Members understand the importance of waste management. Both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee noted that, in the past, reports have been written but no action has been taken on them. We have reached a point when delivery is vital. I note the Secretary of State's comments on that. I also take note of the waste summit and I am delighted about the strategy report, "Waste Not, Want Not".
	The important point is not that we have a problem but its scale. We must consider the policy instruments to resolve it and the timetable for doing that. Both Committees independently describe the Government's performance as "timid". We have not made sufficient progress.
	Yesterday, several hon. Members had the opportunity to talk to the permanent secretary at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He described the recycling and composting targets as "very challenging". He is always a diplomat, and we could not draw him on whether the target of 17 per cent. would be met next year. I got the impression not only that the target was challenging but that the answer was probably no. We need to make progress and analyse the problems.
	In a sense, the problems can be categorised in two types, involving, first, a set of institutional issues and, secondly, a set of issues around policy instruments. I shall first deal with the institutional issues. It is clear that, although DEFRA is the lead Department on this matter, other Departments are involved. The Department of Trade and Industry deals with planning matters, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister encompasses local government, and the Treasury plays an important role—perhaps a prime role—in setting taxation. The Government are of the view that there clearly needs to be greater co-ordination between the Departments, and they are considering, through the Cabinet Office, whether that can be achieved. That ought to be a prime aim.

Peter Ainsworth: I am aware that the Cabinet Office is reviewing the situation, but the hon. Gentleman might wish to know that, when the Secretary of State came before the Environmental Audit Committee on 12 February, she dismissed the idea of consolidating responsibility under one Department. The Government therefore seem to be in some disarray over this issue.

Paddy Tipping: It may well be the case that the idea of consolidation has been dismissed. What the Select Committee is advocating, however, is better co-ordination. We shall need to look at what the Cabinet Office has to say. There are different models for achieving this, but what unites everyone is the fact that the present situation is simply not satisfactory, and that we ought to achieve something better. We also need to look to the Department, because one of the things that came out of our inquiry was that the division between policy and delivery—a lively issue in DEFRA at the moment, in the light of the Haskins review—is not at all clear. The Environment Agency has a regulatory facility—that is its prime task—but it is apparent that at times it is giving policy advice to DEFRA. I suspect that that reflects a lack of resources in the Department.
	A further institutional issue relates to EU legislation. Most of our environmental legislation now comes from the EU, and I have to say that, as a Government and as a Parliament, we do not handle this well. It is a straightforward fact that officials from the UK Government are well regarded in the EU, but our problem is that we do not get involved in discussing draft proposals at an early enough date. We certainly do not consider the consequence of regulations in enough detail. When it comes to our own House, I have to say that the way in which we examine European proposals is woefully inadequate. More legislation will come from the EU, and we must improve our act.
	It is important to recognise that the Department does not itself dispose of waste. It is reliant on other partners, both in the private sector and in local authorities in the public sector. We need a stronger, more effective partnership between those bodies. I think that it is fair to say that DEFRA has a long way to go in terms of building relationships with the private sector. The Department has a particular genesis, in that it is used to working with the farming community, and its approach to partners needs to be examined in some detail. This is highlighted by the notion of a hazardous waste forum, which was long advocated by the private sector but resisted by the Department until the very end, when it eventually realised that it was necessary. There is real expertise in the private sector, and the Department needs to examine ways of handling that expertise, and of communicating far more thoroughly.

Barry Sheerman: Is it not about time that the Government took seriously the concentration of highly skilled people in the Department who know about the waste sector? Is it not a problem that, wherever we look outside the private sector, we see people who do not stay in post long enough to learn how to handle the job, and who are then moved on? This is true of DEFRA and of the Environment Agency. Waste management has been the Cinderella for too long.

Paddy Tipping: It is fair to say that the Department needs to consider the skills that it has, reinforce them and take people forward. We need to reflect on the fact that the Department is relatively youthful—it is two years old—but my hon. Friend is exactly right that we need to ensure that those of the right experience do particular jobs for a prolonged period. There are certainly issues here.
	The private sector will invest if there is a clear view of the future. Regulation needs to be clear before investment takes place. I remark on the fact that we are four years on from the landfill directive, and it is still not clear what material is to be counted as hazardous waste or whether the new standards will be introduced in 2004 or 2005. What signals does that send to the private sector, which wants to invest? Uncertainty will delay the much needed investment in this area.
	Local authorities, of course, are another partner. There are excellent examples of good practice in local authorities, but a shortcoming of the Government and of us all is that we do not focus on good practice enough, or promote and praise it. There is excellent practice about, but there is poor practice as well, so we must work hard to bring the worst up to the best.
	During our inquiry, we were told that, of course, money is not a problem as there is plenty available for local authority waste management functions. Local authorities have a structural problem too, as many areas such as shire counties have a collection authority and a disposal authority. We must look closely at joint planning and a more unified voice for the public sector. It is important that local authorities have the tools to deliver the tasks, but the Committee is not convinced that allocation through revenue support grant makes sufficient money available.
	One needs to consider the money that goes into local authorities for waste management processes through the environmental protection and cultural services block. There is a lack of transparency here, and no one really knows how much money each local authority is being allocated.

Norman Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but is not the situation even worse? Local authorities, perversely, are still given an incentive to landfill and no incentive to recycle compared with landfill. On too many occasions, it is still cheaper to dispose of unwanted material to landfill than to recycle, and there is no market for the recycled material. Beyond that, there is no incentive for local authorities to minimise waste. The hierarchy is not being enforced through economic measures from the Treasury in respect of local authorities.

Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely. If there is time, I will develop those points, but the essential argument is that landfill is still cheap here compared with other countries. Until we can find fiscal mechanisms to resolve that, the problem will persist. A lot of local authority time is spent bidding for money—challenge fund and private finance initiative money, for example. I am not convinced that that is the best way, in the long term, to achieve effective solutions.

Alan Whitehead: On environmental protection and cultural services, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the same budget heading provides local authorities with the ability to pay for landfill and the ability to invest in machinery, plant and activities that divert waste. Therefore, on the face of it, there appears to be a perverse incentive: the more local authorities pay for landfill, the less they have available for waste diversion. Did the Committee consider that point, and what view did it take?

Paddy Tipping: The Committee took the simple view that investment is needed to make better progress and achieve better standards, but it will not come from that block fund, so local authorities are forced to bid for challenge funding and PFI schemes. Until we can give local authorities the tools that they need, problems will continue.

Barry Sheerman: I know that my hon. Friend sets great store by the knowledge and expertise of the private sector. Did the Committee receive any evidence specifying the amount of investment that the private sector considered necessary for the fulfilling of our obligations? According to the parliamentary sustainable waste group, between £3 billion and £5 billion is needed. That is wildly beyond any amount that the Government have mentioned.

Paddy Tipping: That is true. Companies have told the Committee, "We are prepared to invest, but we want"—as they say nowadays—"a road map for the future. We want to know what game we are playing in. Until there is security, we are not prepared to make long-term investment decisions."
	If we are to carry out recycling and composting more effectively, we shall need different collection systems. Local authorities told the Committee that that would cost two or three times more than the black-bag collections that take place now. There is a wider issue here: are we prepared to pay for more effective waste management and disposal? According to figures from France, the cost there is £105 per person as opposed to £60 in this country.

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is making some compelling points, but given the huge divergence between the performance of local authorities here—some do relatively well, while some do abysmally—it must not be just a question of resources. It must also be a question of political will.

Paddy Tipping: It is a question of many things, including resources. There is good practice around, and we need to use local authorities to develop it. I see nothing wrong with the notion of setting targets and measuring against them. If we are to make progress, we must combine all those elements. I referred a few moments ago to best practice on the part of some local authorities and very poor practice on the part of others, and it may well be a question of political will in some parts of the country.
	I want to talk not just about the infrastructure, but about the policy instruments that the Government are currently using to promote change. It would not be fair to say that they have a one-club approach, but it is not a great deal more than that. We depend heavily on the idea of a landfill tax, and we need to develop other policies such as emissions trading. The landfill tax on its own will not bring about change.
	One of the most remarkable examples of consensus at present is the belief that an increase of £3 a year will achieve nothing until the rate reaches about £35 per tonne. I am surprised that the Treasury has not taken more note of that, and I look forward to this year's pre-Budget report.

Barry Sheerman: Apparently the Treasury is saying that the £3 a year is not really £3 a year—that it is aiming for £35, and can increase the £3 a year. Two things would make a difference: the £35 rate, soon, and a strategic waste authority bringing all the players together and introducing some focus and direction.

Paddy Tipping: As I have said, there is a remarkable degree of consensus.

Barry Sheerman: Except in the Minister's case!

Paddy Tipping: I suspect that the problem may not lie entirely with the Minister or the Department. The Department has to talk to friends and colleagues in other Departments, particularly the Treasury. If we want better waste management we must pay more for it, though, and by definition that means raising the landfill tax.
	We need to go further than that. We need to look at a graduated disposal tax and at taxing the various forms of disposal according to their environmental benefit. Good schemes that are environmentally friendly should be subject to less tax than environmentally bad schemes. Plenty of European examples need to be examined. If we were to take that approach, we would be in a position to tax incineration.
	I know that many Labour Members and other hon. Members are interested in incineration. I understand the concerns that exist throughout the country about that. We need to reflect that that public concern basically springs from public health worries and the scare of cancer.
	The Government told us in their evidence that they did not believe that there would be a great expansion in incineration. The Select Committee made a simple point: the Government need to set out their position on incineration. Why are they saying that? If one could, for example, develop a locally based, efficient, energy-from-waste scheme, there would be some mileage in looking at that, but we need to be clear why there is opposition to incineration. To take incineration entirely out of the equation would be short-sighted.

Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that people have concerns about the health aspects of incineration. Those concerns are real, but does he accept that people have other concerns about incineration: while we burn things, we are not using those resources in other ways? There is increasing concern about that, too.

Paddy Tipping: There is concern, but we need to be clear on what grounds we are opposing incineration. There are plenty of grounds to do so, but if the Government are opposing incineration, they need to be clear why. The Select Committee made a simple proposition: the Government should make their position clear on incineration, addressing particularly the health and environmental implications of that type of disposal.

Adrian Flook: Does the hon. Gentleman include incinerating waste in power plants, thereby recycling a lot of fuels?

Paddy Tipping: I thought that I made that point earlier. If I did not, I make it clear now that I believe that the only way forward for incineration is locally based, efficient, energy-from-waste schemes. If a scheme came forward on that basis, rational people would find it hard to oppose it.
	I make a point on another policy strand: household charging and the possibility of direct charging, or variable charging. I feel strongly that local authorities should have the opportunity to experiment and to pilot that. Part of the problem at the moment is that people feel that they are getting waste disposal and waste collection for free. They are not. They are getting it through the council tax. If the link were clearer, if there were some direct charging or, more particularly, some experience of direct charging, perhaps we could make progress.
	There seems to be a strong case for the Government to conclude their reflection on that. They have not ruled it out. They are looking at the issue but there is a strong case for allowing some local determination and local decision making on that matter.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the issue is the central concern that the general public see waste as someone else's problem, rather than their own problem, and that the best way of bringing it home to them as their own problem is to grasp the nettle and to look at direct charging?

Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely, although I would offer a slightly different description. I am not advocating universal direct charging; at this stage, I am advocating what the Select Committee argued for—the opportunity to experiment—because there are pros and cons. However, my hon. Friend makes a very important point about waste disposal being detached from us, and not our concern.
	These are real concerns in my own county of Nottinghamshire. Local people are vigorously opposing new landfill sites planned at the Bentink void and at Bilsthorpe. But the real way to fight landfill schemes is to recycle more and compost more. In Nottinghamshire, it looks as though we will have real difficulty in achieving the 17 per cent. target next year.

Barry Sheerman: Perhaps I can help Nottinghamshire. As my hon. Friend knows, I chair Urban Minds, which builds sustainable growth parks. The real answer that Nottinghamshire is looking for is a 38th themed industrial park. Such sites not only create jobs; all the businesses—small, medium and large—on our sites use waste as their raw material. That is the way forward and I recommend it to my hon. Friend.

Paddy Tipping: I am very grateful for that offer of assistance—in fact, I was about to ask for some help from the Minister himself. When he has the chance to look up from his desk, perhaps he will note the £32 million bid for a private finance initiative scheme in Nottinghamshire.
	I commend the Select Committee's report, and I firmly draw the Minister's attention to the letter from Nottinghamshire county council.

Joan Walley: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who has a long record of service to this House on environmental issues. I should perhaps begin by following his example in referring to absent friends. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). He was unable to join us today, so I am deputising for him.
	It is important that we debate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report and the Environmental Audit Committee report, because there is a huge amount of common ground between them. I should of course point out that the Environmental Audit Committee ranges across all Government Departments. In dealing with waste issues, it is important that we have the whole picture, and that we ensure that environmental issues are at the heart of each Department. It is therefore significant that the House is debating the two reports jointly.
	Before discussing in detail the points that I wish to make—this is my first opportunity to do so—I want to put on the record my personal thanks, and the thanks of countless others who care about the environment, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), the former Minister for the Environment, who is a very good friend of mine. He showed commitment and dedication, demonstrated a grasp of the complicated environment agenda, and enjoyed the trust of environmental groups throughout the country. His contribution was second to none, and I hope that he can in some way continue to play a constructive role in environmental policy. I wish him well. I am sure that we will never know the detail of the many battles that he fought on our behalf.
	I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to his new role as Minister for the Environment. He, too, is a very good friend, a very old friend and a very green friend. I share the view, publicly expressed, of the former Minister for the Environment that if someone else has to do the job, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe is a good choice. I wish him well.

Barry Sheerman: As the new Minister is such a good friend of my hon. Friend, perhaps she should check out his health, as we go in for very robust debates on these issues.

Joan Walley: I did begin by pointing out that there is a great deal of commonality in terms of the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. Just because we are in a congratulatory mode, no one should believe that we will do anything other than carry on being the terrier that bites the Government's heels, keeping a close watch on everything that happens.
	I do not expect for one moment that the new Minister for the Environment will have had the chance, during the few days that he has been in his post, to be 100 per cent. up to speed on the detail of the estimates. I hope, however, that in his reply today and in his day-to-day work—in the House, in his Department and across Departments—he will grasp the fine detail of his brief. I have to tell him that on this subject the devil is in the detail, and we desperately need him to be a green champion in the Government.
	That brings me squarely to this afternoon's debate. Many of us have an overwhelming sense that time is running out: we are up against the clock in respect of the number of hon. Members who want to speak in the debate and in respect of getting the agenda right. We cannot afford to get it wrong. Today, the Select Committee report should make an important contribution to the case for proper funding across the Government for waste management. We may be aware that the Government are listening and making all the right noises about tackling the issue, but when we survey the scale of the problem and the need for urgent action—stressed by just about all the witnesses who gave evidence—we know that time is running out. We have to take the pace of change into account. The most important recommendations are that the Government take urgent action and that our green Minister ensure that all Departments take urgent action.
	We assessed the progress made towards achieving sustainable waste management since the launch of the Government's waste strategy in 2000. We audited performance in recycling and recovery, and found that, based on current trends, the UK is not likely to reach the target set in the waste strategy, which is a matter of great concern.
	That should be set against the background of why it is so important to deal with waste. In every hour of every day, enough waste is produced in the UK to fill the Albert hall—and I do not know how many Chambers of the House of Commons could be fitted into that hall. Every year, England and Wales throw away 470 million tonnes of waste—a rate 22 per cent. higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. We face the startling fact that the UK's waste mountain, already large, is growing. The annual rise in the amount of municipal waste has been 3.4 per cent. since 1996–97. That provides us with a clear picture of why it is so important that the Government estimates are seen as reflecting the need to act urgently and boldly.
	We agree with the view stated in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), that the Government are being too timid. We used the word "timid" in our report, too. The Government have certainly been too timid so far in their combined response to the waste mountain.
	I can also tell the House that I am in 100 per cent. agreement with our Prime Minister on the need to be bold in our handling of the public service agenda. Just this week in his speech to the Fabian Society, setting out his reform agenda, the Prime Minister said that public services were just not moving rapidly enough with the times to meet rising expectations in a modern consumer society. In such a society there is so much throw-away and so little consideration of the longer term or the longer lasting. Nowhere more than in respect of waste management has the impact of the legacy of decades of underspending in the Tory years been greater.

Barry Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend congratulate the Labour Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, on being bold in getting rid of the landfill tax credit scheme? That has meant the end of hundreds of little environmental groups, which did so much good work throughout the country, and led to the unemployment of many working in the environmental sector. Is that boldness at its best?

Joan Walley: My hon. Friend's interventions show how well he understands the waste agenda and the importance of not confusing boldness with the long-term changes that we want. When we act, we must remain consistent with our principles on the environment and remain aware of the importance of employment at a local level. We should ensure that the work carried out under previous arrangements is not just obliterated overnight. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds, he will be able to give a little more information about the new guidance that will apply, so that we do not lose all the best practice that has been built up over the years.
	We need to be bold, in a way that is sustainable in the long term and environmentally correct. Waste minimisation must be a priority for action. The importance of waste minimisation was one of the key findings of our report. Following the Committee's recommendations, we also want to see the immediate introduction of measures to ensure the delivery of targets on recovery and recycling. We had some reference to those measures earlier in the debate.
	However the Government decide to achieve those targets, we have to ensure that we involve and empower local government, as well as provide incentives for it. We cannot succeed in our agenda without local government playing a key part. An early report mentioned the importance of incineration, but one of the recommendations in our report was a moratorium on incineration plans, at least in the short term, because of concerns about public health. The Treasury review is welcome, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address it when he winds up.
	We must also accept that the future of waste management will involve many more smaller, specialist waste disposal facilities and that there will be greater pressure on the waste planning system and the land use planning system. It is important that the Government accept and facilitate that. Many of us who are involved with the detail of policy in our constituencies know only too well how waste disposal licences and planning do not always go hand in hand. We want the Government to get it right.
	We shall want a full reply to our report in due course, over and above the Government's response to the waste strategy unit's report, "Waste Not, Want Not", which was published on 6 May. That response will be the real key to how the Government will be able to deliver the means to achieve our recycling targets, reduce volumes of waste, and encourage the starting of new businesses that can use new technologies and innovation to make a real difference. The report makes 34 recommendations for action as part of a waste implementation programme. Those are all well and good, as is the acceptance that more co-ordination within and between Departments and stakeholders is necessary. That makes particular sense to the Environmental Audit Committee, because it is our brief to scrutinise policy across all Departments and view the whole picture.
	It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he intends to focus all waste policy in one Department, which would make sense, but which the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seemed to rule out when she appeared before our Committee in February. We would be interested in discussing that point with the Minister in the long term. We really need to know details of the Government's response to the strategy unit report, which until now has sidestepped calls for further Government funding. Will the Minister reject the report or will he call for a fundamental shift in strategic direction, including the recommendation for lower VAT rates on recycled products, and for statutory waste reduction targets for councils?
	Having concentrated so far on the purpose and findings of our inquiry, I shall now address the issue of how the Committee's report fits into the wider picture. I wish to impress on the Minister why it is so important that we press the Government to use the opportunity of this vote on estimates to do the right thing for next year's funding.
	We cannot afford to get this matter wrong, because no elected representative—whether elected to this House, the Welsh Assembly or some local government body—has to deal with bigger issues than fly tipping, rubbish and litter. Constituents care about those problems more than any other. They can see that something needs to be done, and there is a real danger that they will lose trust in public representatives if action is not taken.
	We must meet our environmental obligations and responsibilities, and no issues provoke a bigger response, as our mailbags show. We must do something about antisocial behaviour and illegal operations that pollute and foul our countryside and urban spaces. Those actions turn our environment into an eyesore and undermine our quality of life, so it is really important that all Government Departments are involved.
	The Committee's report highlights the valid concerns of local councils, such as mine in Stoke-on-Trent. Although the environmental protection and cultural services block in the standard spending assessment has been increased slightly above the rate of inflation, it is by no means enough to enable councils to allocate the amounts that they would like to allocate to deal with this most pressing of problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) noted earlier. The increase is above the rate of inflation, but is still not enough, especially given the problem of fridges that has been described already.
	The Committee therefore concluded that inadequate funding and a lack of clear Government guidance have made it harder rather than easier for local authorities to reach the targets that they have been set. The measures taken to date do not reflect the urgency of the need for improvement. I recognise that the most recent statistics from the municipal waste management survey showed that the proportion of household waste recycled in England, including composting, rose from 11.2 to 12.4 per cent. between 2000–01 and 2001–02. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that when he replies to the debate, but the figures are not sufficient cause for celebration, as the overall amount being sent to landfill is still increasing.
	There is also the matter of garden waste, on which I sometimes wonder whether the Government's policy is not somewhat perverse. When we talk about recycling, we must make sure that we are talking about additional recycling. We must not talk about what is already happening just because that puts the figures in a more attractive light.
	In evidence to the Committee, the Environment Agency said that it had made two proposals to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for additional funding—for a fly tipping abatement taskforce, and for a national waste data centre for England and Wales. The National Audit Office has endorsed the proposals already, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me, when he replies to the debate, that both applications will be funded in full. If so, it will be possible to make the necessary changes.
	I know a little of the difficulties being experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) in securing support from the Treasury, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and DEFRA for her current private Member's Bill. I therefore want to inform our new Minister that we expect him to overcome any resistance that there might be in the Treasury in respect of funding in full the two Environment Agency applications that I have described. Will he assure the House that, when the estimates are agreed, there will be a clear commitment to funding both the fly tipping taskforce and the data centre? Is the Treasury on board when it comes to those projects? If not, I hope that he will convey to the Treasury that the Environmental Audit Committee will keep on and on about the matter until we get some progress.
	Full funding for both projects makes sound economic sense. They go hand in hand with the precautionary principle, which we have been assured underpins the Government's environmental policies these days. I hope that the Treasury will understand that, for the very good reasons that we have heard already.
	The Treasury must understand that landfill costs will increase, and that the landfill directive will impact on the banning of certain waste streams to landfill as the ban on co-disposal of hazardous waste comes into play. The producer responsibility regulations will also have a huge impact. We have heard already about how we need to deal with European directives and ensure that they are co-ordinated properly with everything else that the House does.
	The Treasury must understand, too, that the European waste catalogue changes the definitions of waste and materials, and that reclassification will have an impact on waste as well. All those pressures will mean more waste, less cheap landfill, higher disposal costs, more illegal activity and organised criminal dumping. If I had time, I could give examples of dumping all round the country for which the clean-up costs far exceed the small amount needed to fund those Environment Agency initiatives.
	There are pressures on responsible operators, and we need to make sure that they can flourish. We need to get rid of cowboy operators and others who seek to exploit the situation. We can no longer afford not to fund in full what we need now. The longer we leave it, the more costly it will be in the long term, and we run the risk of further undermining public trust and confidence in our services and our ability to clean up our towns and cities.
	I hope that the Minister and the Government appreciate the urgency required. We cannot wait for real action until the next spending round, the effects of which will not show until 2005. Before the House is a catalogue of detailed work by two Select Committees. We want a commitment from the Government to show that they take seriously the work of Back-Bench MPs charged with scrutinising their work.

Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on her speech. She has been consistently sound on the environment, and I, like many others, am disappointed that she has not been given a job in the Government. Her expertise should have been put to more constructive use than it has been.
	I welcome the Minister to his post and congratulate him on his promotion. When he comes to understand the scale of the waste and GM problems, he may want to scuttle back to the common fisheries policy.

Elliot Morley: No.

Norman Baker: Well, time will tell. The Minister certainly faces major challenges, not least in taking on the Treasury. Even if he sorts out his own Department, big problems elsewhere have to be solved. That will be a key matter for him. If his predecessor, for whom I have tremendous respect, was not able to do that, it will be a real challenge for the Minister, and the success or failure of his time in Government will depend on it.
	The waste problem is enormous, and the Government face several prongs of attack. First, there are the EU directive requirements on landfill. Secondly, the Government's own recycling targets are difficult to meet, given the base from which they are starting. Thirdly, the cost to UK industry of disposing of solid wastes, liquid and gas is £15 billion a year, which is 4.5 per cent. of annual turnover. That is a gigantic cost to industry. Peter Jones of Biffa Waste Services has said that waste management will be in crisis in five years and that it will cost the UK economy an additional £2 billion a year.
	The problem exists and is running away with us. The Government do not have time to take a leisurely approach. They need to move up a couple of gears, as the two Select Committees have said. The Minister does not have time to set up a couple of task forces and working parties that will return in 12 months to tell him what we already know. He must get moving, and we need action from DEFRA this year and from the Treasury in the next Budget.
	The waste that is being generated is increasing. Our first problem is that we are not cutting waste, but getting further from the European landfill directive targets. The proportion of municipal waste is declining, according to the Environmental Audit Committee report, but the overall amount of waste sent to landfill is increasing: it was 21.9 million tonnes in 1999, and 22.1 million tonnes in 2000. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, every hour of every day, enough waste is produced in the UK to fill the Albert hall. We know, at least, courtesy of the Select Committee, how many waste holes it takes to fill the Albert hall.
	Some 65 million tonnes of rubbish was dumped or buried in this country last year. That is a gigantic amount. There is a whole series of waste streams, and I fear that each must be tackled individually. There is no simple answer; the answer differs for each waste stream. Some 6 billion—I have checked this figure to make sure that it is right—disposable nappies ended up in landfill sites last year. Some 24 million car tyres and 94 million fridges were dumped. About 5,500 tonnes of furniture—equivalent to 82,000 double beds—and 226,000 old cars were dumped in the countryside and elsewhere. Around 32 million printer cartridges were buried. The list goes on and on. The problem is enormous, and we must stem the waste stream. Unfortunately, a lot of the waste is ending up in the countryside. In an answer from the Minister's predecessor to me on 4 March, fly tipping last year led to 600,000 tonnes of waste being deposited on agricultural land alone, never mind all the bits and pieces around our towns and cities. That is an enormous amount of waste. I could list what that constitutes, but time does not allow.
	Fly tipping is getting out of control. One of the problems is the lack of enforcement. People fly-tip because the Government are, correctly, increasing the cost of landfill, although I should like to see it increased faster, but they are not putting in place simultaneously measures to ensure that those who fly-tip are, if possible, caught, prosecuted and fined. That does not happen. A further parliamentary answer on 20 March from the Minister's predecessor showed that in 2001 there were only 225 prosecutions for fly tipping although 600,000 tonnes of waste was fly-tipped. It does not take much imagination to work out that it is in people's interests to fly-tip because they are not likely to be caught, and even if they are caught, they will probably get away with a minuscule fine. We must clamp down on fly tipping more effectively.
	The Government have the hierarchy right and so far they have been good in theory, but not in practice. Everybody in and beyond the House is signed up to their hierarchy. It puts waste minimisation first. We all agree that we should cut waste, but we know that that is not happening. Waste is increasing in volume. What are the Government doing to minimise waste? We hear a lot about recycling, and we hear about incineration and landfill, but we do not hear anything about waste minimisation. I see no indication that the Government have grabbed hold of this at all.
	It is difficult because some of these matters are EU competencies and many Members do not want to see any taxation on virgin products, which would go some way to dealing with waste minimisation. Instead, the packaging directive simply encourages more recycling. That is good as far as it goes, but it does not deal with the volume of packaging produced in the first place. We must improve on waste minimisation.
	The report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at paragraph 17 states:
	"measures to encourage waste minimisation [in the UK] remain very weak."
	I hope that the Minister will pick up that specific point when he replies. The Environmental Audit Committee report states:
	"No target has been set for waste minimisation. The resources available under the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund have been largely directed at recycling projects rather than waste minimisation efforts. Few other levers to stimulate waste minimisation exist to compensate for this. We agree with the OECD's assessment that UK measures to encourage waste minimisation are very weak."
	The description "very weak" is given by both Committees in terms of the effort to minimise waste. We have to get to grips with that. The Government must start leading by example and say how they will minimise waste.
	Reuse is the next part of the strategy. It has its merits. There are still reuse schemes. I am happy to say that there is an excellent one in my constituency for Harvey's beer. The brewery has returnable bottles, which are still used by large numbers of my constituents, myself included, so I declare an interest. I know that it is not possible to have reuse schemes across the whole country. The long distances and the environmental life cycle analysis would not justify it, but surely we could do more to encourage it. What are the Government doing, for example, to ensure that we do not lose our milk rounds? Plenty of milk is still delivered in glass bottles. The average milk bottle has a life expectancy of 17 trips. The same does not apply to plastic bottles from supermarkets, yet supermarket plastic milk is cheaper by and large than milk delivered in glass bottles on the doorstep. That is a perverse economic incentive not to use the best environmental option for buying milk. What are the Government doing about reuse?
	The Government's concentration on recycling has not always been successful. In 2002, we recycled only 5.7 per cent. of organic waste, compared with 75 per cent. in Austria. We recycled 47 per cent. of card and paper, compared with 90 per cent. in Germany. We are near the bottom of the EU recycling league table. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and it is no reflection on a particular Government: that is where we are as a nation and we must address the problem much more effectively.
	When I visited the constituency of the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), I was astonished to find that Oldham borough council, in a building that it was demolishing, had to pay £9 per window to recycle the window and reuse the pieces but only £5 to landfill the window. What kind of incentive is that? It is, again, up to the Treasury. The economics must be right so that individuals, businesses and local authorities can take the right environmental decisions. Currently, they take decisions that are financially, not environmentally, beneficial.
	The Treasury has a major role, which it is not discharging in the way that many of us want. It must ensure that the environmental option is always the cheaper one. That is not the case at present.
	The Government should say firmly that they are in favour of doorstep or kerbside recycling for every household in the country and ensure that they will the means for it. My local authority in Lewes is struggling to introduce doorstep recycling: it is trying to roll out a scheme but finds that it is cheaper to carry on using landfill. That is mad. We have challenging targets and EU regulations, with penalties for non-compliance, yet councils have to landfill because they do not have enough money to set up doorstep or kerbside recycling schemes.

Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituency and about Oldham, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and has one of the worst recycling records in the country. How does he explain the fact that there is a doorstep recycling scheme in my constituency and that an excellent one has recently been introduced in Wandsworth, where it has proved extremely popular?

Norman Baker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman intervened to make a party point, because I have scrupulously tried not to be party political in my speech. I could give the House examples of Lib Dem authorities that have extremely high recycling rates as well ones where the rates are lower. It all depends on when contracts were changed, on the direct labour force and on the rate support grant and the finances available to the council. A combination of factors is involved, as the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. The fact remains that it is cheaper to landfill than to recycle, and that is part of the problem.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically modest about his constituency. A large part of his constituency is, like a large part of mine, run by Conservative-controlled Wealden council, which has an excellent recycling record.

Norman Baker: Yes, it does. Furthermore, Lewes's record is considerably better than it was. Again, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made a party intervention. I am happy to accept that Wealden council has a good recycling record. Equally, I am happy to accept that the London borough of Sutton led the country on recycling. All parties can offer good and bad examples. It does not profit us in this important debate to pick on particular councils. The point is that the Treasury must ensure that the economic indicators are right, and it has not yet done so.
	I have some comments about incineration. The Government are bringing in legislation merely to meet EU directives. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which should be about delivering a sensible waste strategy, in line with the Government's policy, is actually the EU landfill directive implementation Bill. The Government are running after all the EU directives, saying, "What do we have to do meet this target from Brussels?" instead of getting properly involved. One of the criticisms made by the Committees was that the Government did not pick up on EU directives and targets quickly enough.
	The Government have to cut drastically the amount of landfill. They are going to up recycling a bit, although not as much as they might—their targets are modest. What will fill the gap? Incineration. The Minister's predecessor constantly told us that the Government were not in favour of a massive increase in incineration. Well, they may not be in favour of it, but they are going to get it. The logical conclusion of the Government's policy of capping landfill at 35 per cent. and increasing recycling to 35 or 40 per cent. is that everything else will be incinerated. Local authorities are currently taking decisions to meet the Government's targets and they are opting for the simple solution: incinerators.
	Unless the Government quickly get their act together on recycling, reuse and waste minimisation, a chain of incinerators, approved by local councils and the Government in accordance with their waste plans, will cover the country. We shall replace landfill capacity with incinerator capacity. The Minister will have to deal with that problem unless he wants incinerators all over the country. It is no good his shaking his head. Those are the facts. I suggest that he talk to his colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who decimated the Government's arguments on that point on Second Reading of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill.
	I congratulate the two Committees on their work. They have made some pertinent points and the fact that they both considered the issue shows that a major issue is facing this country, and I very much hope that the Government will take on board the points that they have made. The Minister's previous comments and those of his predecessors demonstrate that they are committed, but we have not yet seen the action to realise their commitment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Very little time is left for the remainder of this debate. I cannot expect hon. Members to cut their speeches to ribbons, so I suspect that some will be disappointed, but I hope that they will nevertheless try to bear it in mind that we want to get in as many speeches as we can.

Robert Key: On behalf of my constituents, I thank both Select Committees for their excellent reports. There is much to be learned from them. In particular, I refer to the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has been quite harsh in its judgment of the Government. In paragraph 20 of its report, it says that
	"Defra still appears to lack the capacity, the vision, the sense of urgency and the political will to break the mould and bring about truly sustainable waste management in this country."
	I suspect that that is a little harsh, because we are all in this together. In fact, we are all green now, and there is a lot to be gained from the vote motive that is involved, as we discovered at the recent district council elections, when the Conservatives on Salisbury district council had a recycling policy as a major plank of their election manifesto, and I am glad to say that they won handsomely.
	I was very attracted by the fact that, in paragraph 56 of the report, the Committee said that it agreed
	"with the Local Government Association that variable charging for household waste collection should not be regarded as an additional source of revenue for local authorities but primarily as a means of changing householders' behaviour."
	That is absolutely crucial. We all have to mend our ways when it comes to recycling. We have fallen substantially behind most of our European partners in managing household waste. For example, just across the water in France, there is a twice-weekly recycling service and each household divides its waste for recycling into four bins or receptacles, three of which are collected twice a week and the other fortnightly. It is a question of what people are prepared to pay for and of changing our own habits.
	Before I go any further, I should like to remind the House that none of this esoteric discussion in which we are indulging this afternoon would make a hap'orth of difference if it were not for the men and women of the refuse collection services who go out in fair weather and foul, summer and winter, doing a filthy job. Whatever the weather, they are among the most cheerful, loyal and hard-working people who vote for us—or not—and they serve the whole community so well, and I give my thanks to them.
	Something else that matters—the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to this—is the fact that there are huge variations across the country, often depending on the sort of authority or council that collects and gets rid of the waste. The county council does so in my case. In countryside areas, such as Salisbury and south Wiltshire—which covers an enormous area, 400 square miles, with 48,700 domestic properties and 114,000 people—it is very difficult and expensive to organise waste collection and transport. In fact, that is an absolute doddle in the inner cities or for many of the unitary authorities, which are just a couple of miles square, and that is very important to bear in mind.
	In my constituency, the district council, which is small but covers a huge area, has certainly done very well, but it still has huge and growing volumes of waste. Last year, 39,420 tonnes of household waste went to landfill. Kerbside collection recovered 4,361 tonnes of paper and cardboard for recycling, and 2,847 tonnes of mixed recycled materials were recovered at the 41 mini recycling centres throughout the district. Some 16 per cent. of household waste is recycled. The targets are achievable for our local authority. We are determined to achieve them. We will do it. We will go right up to the 36 per cent. recycling target by 2010. That is pretty good, and I suspect that the target will increase to 45 per cent., as it is on the district council's wish list to aim high.
	One of the big problems is the expense of specialist recycling and collection, particularly of refrigerators. Some extraordinary activity has occurred over the past couple of years—I will not go into it, because the Government know very well what I am talking about—but meeting the increase in the disposal of refrigerators is costing my local authority at least £11,000 a year. In relation to fly tipping, my district council has spent a further £11,000 this year on keeping three or four regular—in the irregular sense—sites clear, and it has spent more than £30,000 in the past year on removing fly-tipped waste, which is a huge additional cost. In 1998, it had to deal with 170 abandoned vehicles, and in 2002, 598. Two members of staff are engaged full-time in investigating those incidents and administering the procedure for abandoned vehicles. Incidentally, one of those staff is a dog warden who has been taken off dog warden duties and put on abandoned car duties, which has upset quite a lot of dog walkers. Just dealing with abandoned vehicles has resulted in a huge additional cost of £86,000 a year.
	A lot of good has also come from this policy, however, and the community projects are very important locally. Talking about Government policy is one thing, but what is really important is changing the mind of the local community. The St. Edmund's ward in Salisbury comprises about 1,200 households. In June last year, it formed a community association to tackle some local problems, one of which was lack of facilities for local waste recycling. It therefore started work with the district council's waste minimisation and recycling officer. It organised a mini recycling centre, a free-to-use community notice board to allow for exchange of unwanted items, a community recycling directory distributed to all households, composting bins, dry receptacles for recyclable goods, reusable kerbside waste paper collection bags, and so on. A great deal can be done, and is being done, at local level.
	I want to commend the work of the Wiltshire wildlife trust because it too has a recycling officer who has been working with the district council in an innovative way. There is a home composting officer, as well as 22 volunteers who advise local households on how to set up proper composting bins at a reduced price of £6 a bin, and they organise shredding events, country and garden shows and goodness knows what. Community composting is therefore a serious part of the agenda.
	The county council too has been working hard, and I wish to commend its policy. Although it does not do the collection, its forward planning and waste programme is absolutely crucial, because without it none of the desired results will be delivered. It has a pooled recycling system and a pooled recycling target with the district council, and is one of only six waste disposal authorities to be granted a target to achieve 33 per cent. recycling by 2005-06. It is also looking at waste-to-energy programmes, reuse and above all reduction, because time and again the onus is put back on individual households—on you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and education and awareness are part of that.
	I do not want to continue at greater length, except to touch on a serious waste issue on which the Government have been consulting: chewing gum, and whether it should be regarded as waste. As the Minister will know, his Department is consulting on whether it should legislate to define chewing gum as waste in these circumstances. It does an enormous amount of harm to our environment, to streets, to pedestrianised shopping areas and even, I notice, to the colonnade between Portcullis House and this House, which is now spotted with chewing gum, which is an expensive problem. A month or two ago, I sought the advice of the Wrigley Company, with which I had a heated discussion. I was told that I had it all wrong, and that it was not the fault of the chewing gum because
	"chewing gum is no different from any other kind of litter".
	The company said that the disposal of gum is at fault because that is the way in which it becomes litter. I am sure that that forms part of the problem, and we know that the company has worked for many years with the keep Britain tidy campaign and its successor. Yes, public behaviour must change, but I do not want to go down the Singapore route of making chewing gum a controlled substance that cannot be sold, and nor do I think that it would be practical to issue huge fines—but why does north America not have a large chewing gum problem? People in New York and Washington do not complain about the problem of chewing gum on the streets, but the problem is serious in this country.
	English Heritage told me that chewing gum causes an expensive problem in several of the properties that it manages. My district council says that it causes an expensive and time-consuming problem in our historic city because only a short time is available to get the slow and cumbersome machines that deal with the problem on to the streets before businesses open. We must pursue a solution—I know that the Government intend to do something about it.
	I was most disappointed by the Wrigley Company's attitude. It has 90 per cent. of the market in this country—Cadbury Schweppes has only a small market share because it has been at it for only a couple of years. The companies cannot ignore the problem that they are creating and for which we are paying. I accept that we are grateful to the Wrigley Company for providing employment in Plymouth, but the impact of the pollutants that it produces is out of all proportion compared with the benefits for our economy. It is no good for the company to say, "Well, biodegradable chewing gum is very difficult and nobody's going to like it." We had better find out about that, because the House will otherwise have to consider more seriously whether chewing gum is a desirable product at all.
	I am not against chewing gum—I chew gum myself. I think that it is quite a good idea to chew gum in the car to maintain one's concentration. However, I do not throw gum out of my car window. I wrap it in a nice bit of silver paper and put it in a receptacle when I reach my destination.
	I ask the Minister to take the issue seriously. I know that people sometimes laugh about it, but chewing gum causes a huge unsightly problem that is expensive to deal with. Speaking on behalf of managers of the centres of historic towns such as Salisbury, I hope that the Government will consider the problem in the wider context of the future of waste management.

David Lepper: May I add my tribute to those that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and welcome his worthy successor, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment?
	Hon. Members have talked about departmental weaknesses and the problems of pinning down responsibility for waste and waste management, which the two reports before us highlight. The reports also question the political will and resources available to deal with those important issues. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke about another aspect of the problem, which is summed up by a quotation in the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Southwark borough council was quoted in the report as saying:
	"In some respects, you could throw loads of money at us and we would set up all the infrastructure, we would have all the vehicles, all of the equipment, but it all comes back to changing people's culture, changing people's habits."
	I do not want to let the Government off the hook in terms of policy and the availability of resources, but the statement makes an important point.
	I want to concentrate on good practice that can be used to change people's habits by citing examples from my constituency, I am proud to say. Perhaps we should start changing people's habits at birth. I am pleased that Brighton and Hove's real nappy promotion project won an award last year from Biffa and the Women's Environmental Network. Seven councils, two hospitals, 10 businesses, a nursery and the National Childbirth Trust are involved in the project, which tries to persuade new parents to use reusable nappies. I understand that reusable nappies today are nothing like the squares of terry towelling that I recall from the days when my children were young.
	The issue is important. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will know that every year East Sussex county council and Brighton and Hove city council dispose of 15,520 tonnes of nappies in the Beddingham landfill site in his constituency. I welcome the fact that DEFRA has provided support for our local project to appoint a project officer to expand its work. It aims to increase by 5 per cent. in one year and 10 per cent. in two years the number of parents with new babies who use reusable nappies.

Norman Baker: Not reusable.

David Lepper: I mean non-disposable nappies.
	Let me move from birth to children. Our report highlights one anomaly. Environmental Campaigns Ltd.—Encams—has done a great deal of work on encouraging schools to become eco-schools and to think seriously about recycling. But a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee from my constituent, Rob Stephenson, who works for Encams and is quoted in our report, highlights the anomaly that for many local authorities schools are regarded as commercial enterprises and cannot take advantage of participating in local recycling schemes. The report makes a recommendation on dealing with that which I hope the Minister takes into account.
	When the Select Committee visited Denmark, one of the interesting projects that we saw was involved in recycling waste from construction and demolition sites. We were told that 90 per cent. of such waste in Denmark is recycled in some way or another. That is because of an agreement between the Danish Government and the Danish Construction Association. Nothing like that exists in this country and I recommend the idea to the Minister.
	My constituency has the Brighton and Hove wood recycling project. It won the national social enterprise award 2002, awarded by the Department of Trade and Industry, NatWest and the Royal Bank of Scotland for entrepreneurial thinking, environmental concern and social change. It began because Richard Mehmed dug around in skips, as he put it. He now runs a major local recycling business.
	I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister the excellent work by the university of Brighton's environmental body under its chief executive, Marie Harder, both to monitor recycling work going on in the East and West Sussex and Brighton and Hove areas and to examine important issues, such as recycling end-of-life vehicles, so that the metal and the plastics are reused—good practice that I commend to the Department.

Gregory Barker: May I also start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher)? He and I crossed swords numerous times during my short two years in Parliament, both in the Chamber and in Select Committee, but my respect for him grew steadily in that time. Although at the outset of this Administration, the Prime Minister's regard for the environmental agenda was not sufficient to persuade him of the need to put the right hon. Gentleman at the head of a Department, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton was nevertheless able to achieve far more in his six years in government, and leave a better legacy, than many of his nominally more senior colleagues inside the Cabinet. His departure from the Government will leave a gaping hole in DEFRA, and I fear it may signal a further downgrading of the environmental causes that he so ably championed
	The Environmental Audit Committee's waste inquiry is, without diminishing the other reports that it produced in the past 12 months, the most important document that it published in the past year. Why? Because waste touches every one of our constituencies and waste is inextricably bound up with the daily lives of each and every one of our constituents. Some 30 million tonnes of waste are produced annually in UK. According to the most recent but still relatively dated figures, of that, 80 per cent. goes to landfill, 12 per cent. is recycled and a growing 8 per cent. is incinerated. Far from reducing the amount of waste we produce, it has grown at an average rate of 3.4 per cent. per annum in recent years. Between 1999 and 2001, it outstripped the growth of our gross domestic product, so we are throwing away our rubbish faster than we are producing it. On current trends, the total amount of waste that the UK produces annually will double by 2020. However, the EAC found that 25 per cent. of local authorities were likely to miss statutory recycling targets in 2005 and 2006.
	In my Bexhill and Battle constituency no single local issue has created greater public anxiety or generated more spontaneous demonstrations of concern than the threat of landfill or incineration. The vast majority of my constituents are not narrow-minded nimbies seeking to duck the big issues created by the Government's failure to curb the year-on-year growth in waste. Energised by the threat of an incinerator at Mountfield, the continued existence of a waste plant at Pebsham or the proposal to create a massive landfill site at the top of Bexhill at Ashdown brickworks, they all want a solution that is better than simply saying, "Not in my backyard."
	My constituents, like millions of people up and down the country, want an ambitious, forward-looking programme of environmental action to deal with the whole problem. They want an over-arching holistic solution to the modern-day multi-headed Hydra of waste. The Government's singular lack of a convincing and sufficiently ambitious, coherent strategy is clearly illustrated by the EAC report. We concluded at the end of our investigation that, based on current performance, improvement would not come close to meeting any of the national targets on recycling or recovery. The targets set for 2010 and 2020, as has been noted, will be missed by a wide margin and do not appear to have a cat in hell's chance of being met.
	Inadequate and, in my view, overly complex and Byzantine funding, coupled with a lack of clear Government guidance, was cited in the Committee's conclusions as making it harder for local authorities to reach targets that have already been set. The EAC was extremely concerned that the measures taken to date do not reflect the urgent need for improvement. I am not suggesting that the Government are closing their eyes to the problem, and I give credit where credit is due. Progress has been made in the past six years. This Administration has gone further in several directions than any Government, Conservative or Labour, have gone before, but that is not enough. One cannot escape the conclusion that, at the very top of DEFRA, at the heart of Government and around the Cabinet table, the issue of waste and many other aspects of the wider environmental agenda simply do not get the priority that they deserve. The problem needs more than just a safe pair of hands. It needs conviction, imagination and ambition.
	The last appearance of the Secretary of State before the EAC on 12 February was a depressing affair. She displayed her usual sure-handed control of her brief, but exuded a wanton lack of ambition or, indeed, any sense of urgency about the issue. In a slightly petulant intervention, she said:
	"I am getting the distinct impression that an awful lot of people"—
	a reference to our witnesses—
	"who have come to see you have all got very good excuses for why they are not doing enough to tackle the problem of waste. They are all saying if only the Government did something different, but that none of them needs to do anything different."
	Perhaps the Secretary of State should listen to Baroness Young, the new Labour-appointed chief of the Environment Agency, who recently said:
	"We need some overarching leadership to take us forward. There is no overall group with this responsibility. Let's look to government to fill this gap. It is not a case of all of us leaning in to fill this space."
	When I asked the Secretary of State whether she would support universal doorstep recycling, she was distinctly cool. I am glad that she has since had a rethink and supports, albeit tacitly, the excellent measure introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). Once again, however, the Secretary of State's response shows that DEFRA is on the back foot, reacting to the debate, not leading it. There is simply a lack of leadership and resources to tackle the problem.
	I am afraid that because of time constraints, I have to cut to ribbons the speech that I intended to make. In conclusion, we need to go further on the landfill tax, which will not work without an incineration tax because, as has already been mentioned, we will upset the waste hierarchy and push more municipal waste into incinerators.
	A lack of coherent, enforceable, ambitious strategy ran through our investigation, like a blue vein in English Stilton. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton was fond of "Waste 2000", but it lacked legislative force. The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remains a muddle of mixed targets and priorities and the new Minister will have his work cut out in re-establishing faith in what the Department can do to meet the challenge.

Alan Whitehead: My speech will be in shorthand. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) suggested that I had decimated the Government's arguments on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. I interpret that in the Roman sense—that nine of the 10 Government arguments stood after I had finished my speech.
	Although the changes that the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill proposes are important and supportable in instituting a trading mechanism to decrease landfill, as matters stand, landfill will probably be replaced by incineration. The survey of local authorities that I conducted—it is on my website—suggests that by 2012, approximately 78 per cent. of the population will live in areas where waste disposal authorities undertake total or partial incineration. Incineration will double rather than remain the same if nothing further is done. There are several instruments, such as an incineration tax and separation of waste collection, that can deal with the matter.
	However, I do not envy the task of my hon. Friend the Minister because it involves not only managing the waste mountain but reducing it radically. That will require radical measures. Even if incineration is avoided, a recent report by the south-east regional assembly suggested that, by 2025, approximately 192 large material recycling facilities—MRFs—and 92 new composters will be needed in the south-east alone. Will they get planning permission? That they may not is due not simply to NIMBYism but to the use of brownfield sites for housing and industrial development. That is important in the south-east, but it removes the ability to place waste management facilities in those areas. Some form of assistance may be needed to ensure that local authorities get planning permission and find the sites for the facilities if incineration is to be avoided. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously into account in his future strategy.

James Gray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on being telegraphic and none the less conveying a couple of useful messages. The debate has been especially interesting, well informed and balanced, with interesting speeches from Members of all parties. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not refer to all the speeches but lump them together. One of the advantages of such a debate on a Thursday afternoon is that we can speak from knowledge and, to some extent, wisdom.
	I congratulate both Select Committees on their excellent reports, which are timely, hard hitting, seminal and, in some respects, worrying. I look forward to the Minister's inaugural outing, at least in this part of his portfolio, and his response. I suspect not only that his speech this afternoon will be important, but that the Department's formal responses will constitute important documents. Sometimes such responses are lightweight, but I hope that the Department will take the opportunity of answering the points in both Select Committee reports in some detail.
	We all agree that the Government's waste strategy is not working. That is not a party political point. The Environmental Audit Committee report states:
	"The UK's waste mountain, already large, is growing."
	The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report begins:
	"Until now, the Government has been too timid in its waste management policy . . . Despite warm words from Defra ministers, the Department does not seem to have a real sense of where it wants to go".
	I could quote extensively from both reports, which are critical of the Government's waste management policy so far.
	More and more waste is produced and far too little effort is being expended on its minimisation. There is no real commitment to recycling—lip service is paid to it, but there is no real financial commitment to it—and the landfill sites are overflowing. The truth is that the country is getting dirtier and dirtier.
	I call on the Minister to acknowledge the scale of the crisis, and to acknowledge that the Government's waste strategy is, so far, clearly failing. I hope that he will come up with a few answers this afternoon and tell the House what they are going to do about this. After all, if we do nothing, we shall face large EU fines. I would rather see the taxpayer's money spent on achieving solutions than on paying out fines to the European Union for not doing so. Quite frankly, given the way that we are going at the moment, there seems little chance of achieving the EU targets.
	The Government love targets, whether they are achievable or not. It is instructive to note, however, that the one target that they have not yet set is for waste minimisation. There is no point in working out wonderful strategies for getting rid of waste without attacking the root cause of the problem and doing something about waste minimisation. Most of the Government money made available for the national waste minimisation and recycling fund has gone into recycling; very little has gone into waste minimisation. We must find a way of persuading householders that they can do a great deal more to cut back on waste. Companies are doing that to a degree, although more education is needed, but householders have very little incentive to minimise the amount that they are putting into their dustbins. The Government must do more to encourage waste minimisation.
	It is also important that we should do a great deal more recycling and recovery. The Government's record on recycling so far is a disgrace. The average increase in recycling of 1 per cent. per annum means that they stand absolutely no chance of achieving their target of 25 per cent. recycling by 2005–06. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I congratulate Wiltshire county council on the work that it is doing, and on the very successful programme that it has brought in. A number of other county councils across the nation—controlled by all three political parties—are doing similar good work, and I congratulate them on that.
	There is still not enough being done, however, and the Government are not giving people enough incentives or help in that area. We need to find ways of increasing recycling. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on getting her Municipal Waste Recycling Bill out of Committee more or less undamaged, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will not put any blockage in its way when it comes back to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages.
	A number of hon. Members have reminded us of the diminishing availability of landfill, and of the ever-increasing use being made of it. Of course we all approve of the landfill tax; it is a useful initiative. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—whose special adviser I was at the time—on introducing it. It was a most useful idea, and I am glad to be able to claim a tiny part of the credit for it.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I fear that I do not have very much time. If I may, I shall rush through a few more points like a butterfly hoping to pollinate two or three of the flowers on which I land.
	The landfill tax will only work, however, if it changes human behaviour. It will be no good if it simply becomes a cash cow for the Treasury and the money goes to hospitals and schools. It must be designed to change human behaviour, and that can occur only if the size of the tax goes up at a reasonably speedy rate. However, that must not be allowed to happen at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses, which might be unable to afford it. The Government have said that the landfill tax is to be revenue neutral; they also said that about the energy tax. We want to know how they are going to achieve that, as we have yet to hear how they will change the tax system so that the increase in the landfill tax will become revenue neutral. I regret that the landfill tax credit scheme has disappeared. It was particularly useful for all kinds of splendid local environmental schemes, such as those involving village halls. Simply using the money for things that the Government and the taxpayer would normally fund seems quite wrong. I am a strong supporter of the landfill tax credit scheme.
	I want to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about hazardous waste. A real worry is that there has been a sharp increase in the number of things that are going to be counted as hazardous waste. Televisions, oil, fluorescent lights and discarded vehicles are among the 400-odd things shortly to be listed. However, the number of sites that will be allowed to be used for hazardous waste is to decrease from 184 to only 14 by the end of 2004. So there will be a sharp increase in what may be considered hazardous waste, but a massive decline in the number of sites that we can use. The animal by-products regulations will affect that to some degree, which means a sharp increase in agricultural waste going to landfill.
	The Minister knows that, earlier this afternoon, we raised the issue of why the ash from the 250,000 tonnes of beef that will be burned as a result of the animal by-products regulations has to go to landfill when human ash from crematoriums can be scattered on gardens if that is what we want.
	A number of Members spoke about the problems of incineration. My instinct is to be very worried about it indeed and to hope that some moratorium, or at least some limit on its increase, can be put on it. There is a natural incentive: if people do not want to use landfill, they will go for the next cheapest option, as the report says, which is incineration. That would be particularly worrying. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that, although these remarks do not apply to energy-from-waste schemes, which are to be encouraged in every possible way.
	The reality is that we face a severe crisis in our waste management strategy. The Select Committee said, in straightforward terms:
	"We are concerned that Defra still appears to lack the capacity, the vision, the sense of urgency and the political will to break the mould and bring truly sustainable waste management to this country."
	I hope that the Minister will give us some of that vision, sense of urgency and political will.

Elliot Morley: I am delighted to respond to this thoughtful and detailed debate, which has involved contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and, indeed, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
	I am privileged to follow in the footsteps of my friend and colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). I make it very clear that I share his commitments in relation to environmental issues and, indeed, to tackling this key environmental issue. Waste and waste management are at the heart of resource productivity. They are part of the matrix of moving us through to sustainable development and tackling climate change. Reflecting that, waste is one of six strategic priorities set out in my Department's corporate strategy, which was published last month.
	This is an issue not only for the Government, although I am in no way ducking either our responsibilities or taking the lead that we must give. I endorse what the hon. Member for Salisbury said: waste minimisation is an issue for councils, industry, business, the Government and individuals. Nobody wants a new landfill site or incinerator to be sited near them, and the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle need to ask themselves what they are doing to minimise waste in terms of their individual activities, because that is an issue for us all.
	That is why the Government welcome the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee choosing to investigate waste, and why I welcome the thoughtful, detailed and, in some cases, critical speeches such as those from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Sherwood. They have a good record on green issues, and they are right that we go back a long way. Our interests are not particularly new.
	My hon. Friends also know that we take seriously the content of their reports, which are a challenge to the Government. We need to respond to them and to the reasonable and fair points that have been raised in some detail, and we will do so, but I am sure that Members understand that, given the time, I cannot enter into a detailed discussion of all the specific recommendations and conclusions.
	I absolutely accept that more needs to be done. I also accept that there are issues raised in the reports that we must take seriously in terms of meeting the objectives that we want. For example, I can say that the Cabinet Office is considering whether all waste issues can be managed by one Department and that measures proposed on fly tipping will be strengthened in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. We are also considering further measures, because we accept the points that have been made on enforcement and dealing with what is a despicable activity in the countryside. I really cannot understand how people can do this.

Joan Walley: In view of what he has just said about fly tipping, would my hon. Friend be kind enough to write to the Environmental Audit Committee about the new enforcement measures?

Elliot Morley: The new measures are still being considered, but I can certainly cite the issues relating to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
	As has been said, our key aim is to meet our targets—to boost household recycling and composting to 17 per cent. by 2003–-04 and 25 per cent. by 2005–06, and to reduce the amount of biodegradable household waste going into landfill to meet the requirements of the landfill directive by some 65 per cent. by 2020. Those are challenging targets by any standard, but I do not go along with the doom and gloom that we heard from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I do not wish to duck the difficult issues that have been raised, but we think that the 17 per cent. target is within reach, and hope that the 25 per cent. target constitutes a minimum.
	The results of the latest municipal waste management survey, published in May, are not all bad news. The proportion of household waste being recycled is increasing. In 2000–02 it was 12.4 per cent., up from 11.2 per cent. Some 58 per cent. of households in England now benefit from some degree of kerbside collection of recyclates: in many instances, that has happened in the last 12 months. Things are moving in the right direction, but I know that more needs to be done. The less good news is that the amount of waste is increasing year on year, although the rate of increase slowed in 2001–02. We are reducing the proportion that goes to landfill, but the total amount is increasing. It must decrease quickly in order to meet the landfill directive targets. We are doing a great deal in that regard.
	On 6 May, the Government published their response to the strategy unit's report on waste. The timing of the inquiries meant that they could not consider their response in the context of the reports we are discussing today, but I am confident that what we have said in "Waste Not, Want Not" addresses many of the Committee's concerns. We have accepted the great majority of the recommendations and support the direction or intent of many of the others.
	The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill constitutes a direct move to reduce reliance on landfill. We are not just being driven by European directives. The Bill introduces a system of landfill allowances that will help local authorities to reduce their reliance on landfill in a cost-effective and innovative way. We will consult on the details of the scheme later in the summer. The Bill also contains a provision allowing waste disposal authorities to direct waste collection authorities to deliver waste separated. That will help waste disposal authorities to manage waste through recycling rather than disposal. We have announced our intention to table amendments on Report to make municipal waste management strategies mandatory in two-tier areas. That will help to ensure that authorities work together to plan for sustainable waste management. The Bill is a regulatory measure, but we accept that a balance is needed. We have also introduced fiscal measures to reduce reliance on landfill.
	I take the point that was raised about the role of financial instruments. We have applied a number of instruments, including statutory recycling targets, landfill allowances, the enforcement of producer responsibilities in, for instance, the waste packaging regulations, resolutions, and the waste and resources action programme. We are also considering pilots of other financial instruments.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I am afraid I have only two minutes left.
	The Chancellor announced that the landfill tax would rise by £3 a year from 2005 to a medium to long-term level of £35 per tonne. I listened carefully to what Members said about the level and rate of the increase, and I have some sympathy with it. I assure them that I will give it some thought.
	We are addressing the issue of waste minimisation. I have mentioned the doubling of household recycling rates. We aim to strive for that higher point in the waste hierarchy with renewed vigour. The expansion of our waste and resources action programme is the first step in that direction. It will boost waste minimisation. A quarter of a million more bins for home composting have been made available, for instance. We have a retailer initiative to reduce the amount of waste entering the waste streams. We are working with the re-usable nappy scheme. I congratulate councils that have been involved in promoting the re-use of nappies among new parents. It will help existing and new—
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates etc.) and Order [29 October 2002].

ESTIMATES 2003–04, HOME OFFICE

Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £7,181,299,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,391,463,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Home Office.

ESTIMATES 2003–04, DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £1,386,358,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £1,456,729,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

ESTIMATES, 2003–04

Resolved,
	That further resources, not exceeding £194,587,132,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £163,523,577,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, as set out in HC 648, 655, 656 and 657.
	Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

John Healey accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31st March 2004 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31st March 2004; to appropriate the further supply authorised in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 123].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Police

Ordered,
	That the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Amendment No. 4) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1418) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Gillian Merron.]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 3rd July at half-past Two o'clock; and
	(3) at that sitting—
	(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(b) at the conclusion of these proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Gillian Merron.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Companies

That the draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment) (Eligible Debt Securities) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Pagham Post Office

6.2 pm

Nick Gibb: I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by 1,424 residents of Pagham in my constituency against the proposed closure of Pagham post office. The signatures were collected by Pauline and David Bailey, by Jean Morgan and by Mrs. J. Bright in just a few days and represent about one third of Pagham's population.
	The petition states
	the proposed closure of the post office in Pagham will result in severe hardship to the many elderly people who live in Pagham, many of whom are not physically able to travel to the next nearest post office . . . that there are no other banking facilities in Pagham: that the closure of the post office may ultimately lead to the closure of the remaining shops in the village.
	The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government and Post Office Limited to maintain the post office presence in Pagham either at the existing outlet or within one of the other shops on the Parade at Pagham.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Pharmacies

Roger Casale: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 1,683 residents of Wimbledon that has been collected by Mr. Paresh Modasia. Signatures were collected at local pharmacies, including the Hilton pharmacy, D.E. Davies pharmacy, Ridgway pharmacy, Mount Elgon pharmacy, Barkers chemists, Seamens chemists, Haydons pharmacy, D. Parry pharmacy and Chemco pharmacy. The petition declares
	that proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies . . . should be rejected by the Government to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued service to local communities.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

MR. WILLIAM WRIGHT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Peter Robinson: I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to raise the important matter of the need for an investigation into the death of Mr. William Wright. Before paramilitary prisoners were released under the provisions of the Belfast agreement, it was a regular feature in the lives of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to respond to requests from paramilitary prisoners to visit them in prison. Few months went past without a visit to Crumlin road, Maghaberry, Magilligan or the Maze prisons. Those visits usually resulted in requests to deal with prison conditions or the particulars of a prisoner's sentence or, at times, to help their families.
	In March 1997, my office received a request for me to visit Billy Wright in Maghaberry. The visit was arranged for, and took place on, Tuesday 18 March at 2.30 pm. Billy Wright was the leader of the paramilitary group the Loyalist Volunteer Force, and was serving an eight-year sentence for threatening the life of a woman. My intention, however, is to speak not of the life of Billy Wright, but of his death and the circumstances surrounding it. His father and family are entitled to know the truth.
	During my visit, Billy Wright informed me of his concern about the arrangements under which he was being held at Maghaberry prison. He said that he was locked in his cell 23 hours a day without the association granted to other prisoners, and that he believed his life to be in considerable danger from republicans in the prison. Indeed, the alleged reason for the 23-hour lock-up was the prison authorities' concern for his safety. He wanted to move to the Maze prison, where he could be placed on a wing with other LVF prisoners. He indicated that if such a move were not granted by 1 May, he would go on hunger strike. The timing would be such that his death would coincide with the Drumcree period. I have abbreviated the details of my visit because of the time constraint, but the message was clear and disquieting.
	On the following evening, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I sought out and met, within the precincts of the House, the then Minister with responsibility for prisons, Sir John Wheeler, and outlined our concerns. We told Sir John, whom I regard as one of the most genuine and sincere Ministers that we have had in Northern Ireland, of the consequences of Billy Wright's being killed or dying in prison, and urged that even to avoid years of 23-hour lock-up, a move would be sensible. To what extent our approach influenced the then Minister's decision I do not know; for I hope that others, particularly the governor of Maghaberry prison, were also conveying the view that a move was wise. However, Billy Wright was later moved from Maghaberry to the Maze—before 1 May—and placed in a wing in H-block 6 with other LVF prisoners. Incredibly, however, the LVF wings were in the same block that housed Irish National Liberation Army prisoners. Neither group had declared a ceasefire.
	Immediately on Wright's being moved to the Maze, an incident occurred at Maghaberry prison that had a direct link to the death of Billy Wright. Two INLA prisoners, Christopher McWilliams and John Kennaway, took part in a hostage-taking incident in which they used a smuggled weapon. I am now satisfied that McWilliams and Kennaway had intended to murder Wright in Maghaberry prison, but discovered too late that he had been moved to the Maze. Absurdly, the prison authorities decided to punish McWilliams and Kennaway by transferring them to the Maze—the prison to which Wright had been moved.
	Some months later, on 27 December 1997, at 10 minutes past 10 in the morning, it was McWilliams, Kennaway and a third man, John Glennon, who murdered Billy Wright by pumping seven shots from a Hungarian PA63 semi-automatic weapon into him as he waited in a prison van in the forecourt of H-block 6 to be taken to the visitor's area for a scheduled visit. The three men who killed Wright made their way to him over the H-block roof and through a hole cut in the security fence. After the killing, the men made no attempt to escape, but simply returned to their wing and, with the intervention of a priest, gave themselves up to officers.
	There is therefore no question about who killed Billy Wright. The three Irish National Liberation Army men were convicted of the murder on 20 October 1998 and their organisation claimed full responsibility for it. Yet many matters point to persons in authority in the state having accommodated that murder. The case demands answers.
	I am not someone who reacts to each and every incident by calling for a public inquiry. I believe that such an approach devalues the currency of such a call. However, when, as in the case of Billy Wright, a man is shot and murdered in the highest security prison in Europe and today, six years on, so many questions remain unanswered, I believe that only a full public inquiry can settle the matter once and for all.
	In August 2001, the Government announced that they would appoint a "judge of international standing" to undertake a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion in several cases, including that of Billy Wright. In May 2002, Judge Peter Cory was appointed and the decision on which cases warrant a public inquiry is awaited. However, the BBC "Spotlight" team investigated the circumstances of Wright's murder and doubted whether the INLA gunmen could have carried out their attack unaided. Very serious questions were posed, but they received no satisfactory answers.
	The questions centre on how the INLA gunmen were able to leave their wing and cross the roof of the H-block undetected by prison staff. Why was a security camera covering the murderers' route not working on the day of the murder? Why was a list containing the names of Loyalist Volunteer Force prisoners expecting visits on the day of Wright's murder shown the previous evening to INLA prisoners, thereby alerting them to Wright's movements? How were the two guns used in the killing of Mr. Wright brought into the Maze prison? Why, given the history of McWilliams and Kennaway in smuggling guns into Maghaberry prison, were stricter measures not in place to monitor their activity? Why was a prison officer manning a watchtower twice ordered to leave his post—in contravention of prison standing orders—just before the murder? Why was the advance cutting of the fence not detected? There are numerous other unanswered questions, but time does not permit such a recitation. It is worth adding that remarks made by one of the killers adds weight to the call for a proper investigation. On "Newsnight" on 24 November 2000, Christopher McWilliams said:
	"Obviously they turned a blind eye. They were warned on numerous occasions that there was a possibility of trouble outside and inside and they were warned many times."
	Billy Wright's father, David, has been tireless and assiduous in his quest to establish the truth of what happened to his son. On several occasions he has gone to the High Court in Northern Ireland to get answers to his questions. Support for the holding of an inquiry has also come from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was set up, among other things, to advise the Government. In this case, however, the Government seem unwilling to accept their advice.
	Recently, Mr. David Wright sought to have access to the police file on the murder of his son. To advance his goal, he sought a judicial review, which was heard by Mr. Justice Kerr. Although he determined that it was not an automatic requirement of article 2 of the European convention on human rights that Mr. Wright be entitled to the police file at that time, he lucidly articulated another stunning and considered conclusion that he had reached. Having reviewed the police file, he was being asked to make it available to the murdered man's father. Having taken account of other so-called investigations, the judge concluded:
	"I am satisfied that an Article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Wright has not yet taken place. Such an investigation would have to address directly such issues (among others) as . . . how the murderers were able to penetrate the forecourt area unobserved; how they were able to obtain the materials to manufacture the weapons used; how they knew that Mr Wright would be in the prison van at the time the murder took place and whether there was any evidence of collusion on the part of members of prison staff. None of the inquiries so far held has provided a satisfactory answer to these questions. The obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Mr Wriqht is a continuing one. The applicant, as the next of kin of Mr Wright, enjoys a current right under Article 2 of ECHR to an effective investigation of his son's death."
	In my role as a Member of Parliament, what appear to be photocopies of the contents of the very police file that the courts refused to make available to Mr. David Wright have come into my possession. They were sent to me anonymously and the contents strengthen the call for a full public inquiry. They give rise to a number of serious questions about the authorities' failure to heed any one of a number of warnings from various prison staff before the murder of Mr. Wright.
	The file shows that in the months leading up to the murder, prison governors were personally, and in correspondence, warned about security at H-block 6. They were warned about the danger of an attack and about how the attack would take place and they were even given the names of the prisoners who would be involved. The file also shows that prisoners, some of whom were subsequently involved in the murder, were reported examining the fence and determining how to get through it. The governors were told of concerns about camera coverage, about the dropping of the guard at watchtowers and over arrangements relating to visits. All of those concerns were ignored and the officers were left with the impression that their warnings had been a waste of time and that no corrective measures would be taken.
	The file contains details of statements showing that Ministers had been acquainted with prison officers' concerns about security at the prison. On 21 January 1998, the then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, responding to remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), stated that since May 1997—when the Government came to power—
	"the Government have put in place a progressive programme of tightened security measures, including twice daily head counts; cell fabric checks; a comprehensive search of cells and the blocks . . . and the scanning of all visitors along with other . . . measures, with more to come."
	He continued:
	"It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman maintains, that security has been relaxed since May. The opposite is true, as the measures I have described prove."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 985.]
	The Minister's claims are at total variance with the contents of the police file. The measures outlined by the Minister were not in place.
	The file details how prison staff watched for days as specified INLA prisoners used the painting of a mural on one of their wings near the circle area—the area that joins the four wings of the H-block—to observe the activity of prisoners in the two LVF wings. The experienced officers were able to identify the intended target and the INLA prisoners involved. They were even able to advise the governor how the attack was to be carried out. No responsible governor would have ignored those warnings. Whom did the governor consult about that information? Given the high political sensitivity of the intended attack, did he contact the Northern Ireland Office? Did officials there inform the Minister? We do not know, because—bizarre though it seems—according to the file, those matters were not investigated.
	This is a case in which a murder took place that the INLA prisoners had been openly threatening, and was therefore predictable. But more than that, we now know that it was predicted in precise detail, and in good time for action to be taken. It could therefore clearly have been prevented. It must be established why it was not. Who took the decision to do nothing? Who took the decision to allow Billy Wright to be murdered?
	Having reviewed the police file, I firmly concur with the remarks made by Mr. Justice Kerr in his judicial review ruling. He said that a proper investigation into the death of Billy Wright
	"has not yet taken place."
	Perhaps more germane is his observation:
	"The obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Mr. Wright is a continuing one."
	Mr. Justice Kerr's conclusion was that Mr. David Wright
	"enjoys a current right under Article 2 of ECHR to an effective investigation of his son's death."
	I am concerned that the Government are actively attempting to conceal the full details of this murder. The Government's Narey investigation was patently a face-saving farce. Under pressure to have an inquiry, the Government sought to suggest that the matter could be investigated by Mr. Martin Narey. Judge Kerr's comments dismiss that investigation as not being compliant with article 2 of the European convention. Indeed, Martin Narey himself, when he reported, never claimed that his investigation into the Wright killing was thorough. Instead, he said that his interest was confined to the background of the shooting, and the general issues that it raised.
	It has to be said that, even at that stage, the cover-up had begun. Narey was unable to interview 26 prison officers, all of whom were conveniently absent from work through illness and therefore could not be interviewed. The police file includes a memo from a detective chief inspector stating:
	"During interview, some prison officers have expressed concern that complaints made to senior officers seem to have fallen on deaf ears. It was agreed that no prison officers' statements would be made available to anyone other than police."
	What does that intention to conceal mean? Is it in line with the fact that these matters never came out at the subsequent court case for McWilliams, Kennaway and Glennon? Were crucial witnesses absent from the inquest for the same reason?
	The level of negligence in the prison leading up to the murder of Billy Wright can be explained only by way of deliberate intention. Why was no action taken when clear warnings were given? Why has there been a complete failure adequately to explain or justify those failures to act? The conviction of Billy Wright's murderers should have marked not the end of the investigation but merely the beginning of the next phase. In his evidence to the judicial review hearing, the Chief Constable submitted that the investigation of the death of Mr. Wright was treated as closed on the conviction of those responsible for his murder.
	The failure to provide answers to these critical questions, in addition to the numerous questions that have been raised over the past number of years, makes a full public inquiry vital to ensure public confidence. I believe that the police file's contents raise very serious questions about how the matter has been dealt with, and require that a full public inquiry be held.
	We do not need to wait for the outcome of Judge Cory's investigation. The Government themselves should fulfil their ECHR responsibility, as instructed by the court. Avoiding a full inquiry is not an option; delay suggests that the Government have something to hide. Evidence that suggests that officers of the state either turned a blind eye to the murder of Billy Wright, or—worse—were actively involved in facilitating it, cannot be ignored. There are many questions that demand answers. Only a fully independent inquiry can provide them.
	The Government should not kick for touch by suggesting that the Cory investigation can decide whether an inquiry is needed. Obviously, a recommendation by Cory to hold an inquiry would resolve the matter but a recommendation by Cory not to have an inquiry would not remove from the Government the obligation—of which Mr. Justice Kerr has reminded them—to carry out an investigation compliant with article 2 of the ECHR. The Government have been ducking and weaving too long. It is time for them to act.

Jane Kennedy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on securing the Adjournment debate. Before I respond to some of his specific points, I take this opportunity to express regret on behalf of the Government at the death in custody of Billy Wright. I acknowledge that the murder is most sorely felt by his immediate family, including his father David. However, it would be remiss of me not to draw Members' attention to the very real dangers posed by serious terrorist offenders down the years. Those dangers contributed significantly to the difficult nature of the segregated regime at the Maze prison. That regime enabled prisoners, including, it must be said, Billy Wright, to enjoy a level of control within the regime at the Maze that put significant pressure on both management and staff. Many prison officers and prisoners paid the ultimate price for that, and that is why we continued to resist pressures for segregated conditions.
	Before I turn to the murder itself in the very brief time left available to me, I should respond to the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made. He referred to comments made by my predecessor and quoted from Hansard. He is the best judge of his own conduct in bringing such a matter, particularly the confidential file, to such a public arena. I have not seen that file, and I therefore cannot respond in any detail. It occurs to me to wonder whether, had the hon. Gentleman been serious about wishing to get to the bottom of the matter—in his terms—and to examine the issues in detail, he might have sought to consult me, as the relevant Minister, and prison officials. If he had, we could have examined the points that he has made in some detail and sought to give a proper and reasoned response to the allegations that he has made. I am not aware of any such approach having been made to my office, and hon. Members may draw their own conclusions on why he has chosen to raise this matter in this way. The fact of his having possession of such a confidential file is, in itself, something on which I shall have to reflect when I read Hansard after this debate.
	The hon. Gentleman pointed to several factors that he interpreted as meaning collusion. I have only three minutes in which to do it, but I shall consider just one or two of them in detail. Whether he likes it or not, I will rest on the Narey report. He has dismissed that report out of hand, but I do not believe that it should be dismissed. It is a serious report.

Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman left me only 10 minutes to reply, not three minutes as I said earlier. He raised a number of serious issues, and it is important that I should use my time to respond.
	The Narey report concluded that
	"the decision to co-locate the two factions"
	at the Maze prison
	"was not an unreasonable one for the Governor to make. The decision was taken only after the most serious consideration of its implications. It is important to stress that prisoners were in the same block but on completely discrete wings, separated by six steel gates."
	The House may be interested to know that no other accommodation was available at the Maze at that time. It already housed four other factions in seven H-blocks, and one H-block was always kept empty for a rolling refurbishment programme. It should be remembered that Billy Wright requested to go to the Maze in the full knowledge that he would have to be housed with INLA prisoners, since that was the only available accommodation. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, he threatened a hunger strike, which would have culminated around the Drumcree protests in July, until his request was met.
	Following the hostage-taking incident at Maghaberry, preventing the prisoners and staff who had witnessed that incident from discussing it in any way was a priority, as there was a strong possibility of witnesses being called to any subsequent trial. Given the number of witnesses, the simplest way of achieving that was to remove the prisoners to the INLA wing at the Maze. Magilligan was an option not open to the prison service, as it was, and remains, a medium to low-risk security prison.
	Narey's report found that the area of fence from which the hole was cut was out of range of CCTV cameras covering the exercise yard. The prison authorities were aware that one camera was malfunctioning. The hon. Gentleman will know that that camera was maintained by an outside contractor, who had been informed that it was in need of repair. It must be remembered that there were in excess of 200 cameras around the Maze prison at that time. Inevitably, there would be periods when one or more were malfunctioning. The Narey report addressed this issue and others about the insecurity of the roof area, for example, in the following way:
	"it must be recognised that in a prison like the Maze the Governor is inundated with warnings, rumour and anecdote."—

Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Kennedy: No, because in a half-hour Adjournment debate I have limited time, and the hon. Gentleman took a significant time to present his case. [Interruption.] He may shout if he wishes to, but that just limits my ability to respond. The report continued:
	"He cannot react to all of them because to do so would prevent the running of the prison: prisoners would never be able to leave their wings. And the observation that Mr Wright was in danger was already appreciated by him. The Governor recognised the risk and attempted to manage the risk",
	but in the event the attempt failed. That is the matter of regret that the Government acknowledge.
	Narey was unable to establish how the firearms used entered the prison. Rigorous search procedures were in place that self-evidently failed. As with all security matters, a balance has to be struck between the security of the prison, prisoners and staff and their rights and dignity. It is impossible to stop all smuggling into prison without the use of closed visits, where prisoners do not come into contact with their visitors, and draconian search procedures, which would need to include intimate searching.
	Narey also made recommendations aimed at preserving the integrity of security fences that were introduced immediately. The report states that the fence is observable from the watchtower. However, it is only the general area that can be observed. It is impossible to detect any interference with the fence itself from the tower, and prisoners had access to that area.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the prison officers in the watchtower overlooking the prison roof. Narey concluded:
	"In our view, whether or not the tower was manned, Mr Wright would still have been shot. Even if the tower officer had raised the alarm immediately, only one member of staff could have gained access to the forecourt, and had he intervened to protect Mr Wright, it is likely that he too would have been shot. Moreover the fact that the alleged perpetrators made no attempt to disguise themselves indicates that potential detection or identification was of little concern to them."
	The hon. Gentleman made one or two other points that I do not have time to address.
	I turn now to the issue of inquiries and the campaign supported by the hon. Gentleman for a public inquiry. It is the Government's view that the death has been adequately investigated. Three men have been convicted for the murder as a result of the police investigation. The findings of the coroner's court concurred with that outcome.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the judicial review. The judgment of Mr. Justice Kerr was against releasing the police file that the hon. Gentleman has used this evening. However, the judge commented that none of the inquiries in his view held so far have satisfactorily answered a number of aspects, and the hon. Gentleman listed those aspects. The judge also said that he would reconsider whether he would reveal the contents of the police investigation once Justice Cory had decided what further action was required.
	The Narey report concluded that while the death was regrettable, there was no evidence that manning of watchtowers, cameras working and so on would have made any difference to the execution of the crime. The Government take allegations of collusion seriously. The points—
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Seven o'clock.